J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 22, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 254 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc . Gulistan Division and
Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO.
Cases 10-CA-7261, 10-CA-7323, 10-CA-7364, and
10-CA-7450
October 22, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that Respondent, J. P. Stevens & Co.,
Inc., Gulistan Division, Statesboro, Georgia, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
On June 6, 1969, Trial Examiner Robert E.
Mullin issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
also found that Respondent had not engaged in
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint,
and recommended that such allegations be
dismissed Thereafter, Respondent, the Charging
Party, and the Intervenors' filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a
three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts
the findings," conclusions," and recommendations° of
the Trial Examiner.
At the hearing in Case 10-CA-7450, Don F Hughes and approximately
113 other employees of Respondent appeared through counsel and were
permitted to intervene, in order to challenge the validity of authorization
cards obtained from them by the Union
We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(3)
and (I) by refusing to employ Mary Frances Bradley for discriminatory
reasons The record reveals she applied for a job with Respondent before
organizational activities commenced At that time, she listed two active
union supporters as her relatives on the application form Bradley was then
overweight Personnel Manager Harrington told her that " he couldn't
use me on account of my weight for the insurance they were carrying,"
and that she would have to lose some weight By April 30, 1968, after the
organizational drive began, Bradley had lost approximately 85 pounds
Again she applied, telling Respondent she desperately needed a job At this
time Harrington asked her if she were related to Charles Waters (a
prounion employee) and Truman Delano Cribbs (a union leader found to
have been discriminatorily discharged by Respondent on March 26) When
she acknowledged being closely related to both, Respondent told her he
could not promise her a job Later, on May 6, when Bradley again asked
for a job, Harrington told her no job was available and she should not
bother coming back The record reveals that after Bradley's April 30
application. Respondent hired nine women On these facts, against the
strong background of the antiunion animus, we adopt the Trial Examiner's
finding that Respondent refused to employ Bradley because of her
relationship to active union supporters in violation of Sec 8(a)(3) and (l)
In doing so, we do not rely on Bradley's testimony regarding her
conversation with the Mayor of Statesboro after the April 30 application
In adopting the Trial Examiner's 8(a)(l) and (3) finding regarding
William Gary Akins, we do not rely on the Trial Examiner ' s comments
regarding Respondent 's failure to withhold salary from Akins during his
absence from work
Respondent and the Intervenors have excepted to some of the credibility
resolutions made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established
policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner 's resolutions as to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they
are incorrect Such a conclusion is not warranted here Standard Drv Wall
Products , Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
The record reveals that upon learning of the presence of the Union,
Respondent resorted to a campaign of extensive and egregious unfair labor
practices in its efforts to thwart the Union ' s organizational drive The
timing of Respondent's unfair labor practices , commencing almost
immediately after the organizational drive began and persisting until after
the time of the election , persuades us that the unfair labor practices were
calculated to, and in fact did dissipate the majority which the Union
acquired between February 18 and March 18, 1968 In these circumstances
we believe that a bargaining order is required to repair the effects of such
unfair labor practices For this reason , and also because Respondent's
unfair labor practices were of such a nature as to make the erasure of their
effects by traditional remedies and holding of a fair and coercion free
rerun election improbable if not impossible, we are of the opinion and find
that, on balance the rights of the employees and the policies of the act
would better be effectuated by reliance on the employee sentiment as
expressed in the authorization cards Accordingly , as there is no question
that the Union had been validly designated by a majority of the employees
as their representative when the Union renewed its bargaining demand, we
find that by refusing to honor the Union's bargaining demand and by
engaging in the numerous unfair labor practices found by the Trial
Examiner , Respondent violated See 8(a)(5) and ( I) of the Act , and that
the policies of the Act will be effectuated by the imposition of a bargaining
order to remedy the Respondent's refusal to bargain , as well as its other
unfair labor practices herein found N L R B v Gissel Packing Company.
395 U S 575, Sinclair Company v N L R B , 395 U S 575
'The Charging Party has filed exceptions to the failure of the Trial
Examiner to recommend a remedy which would make whole all of
Respondent ' s employees for contractual benefits which would have accrued
to them had Respondent not refused to bargain and had a
collective-bargaining agreement been concluded We deem it inappropriate
in this case to depart from our existing policy with respect to remedial
orders in cases involving 8 ( a)(5) violations, and therefore find no merit in
the said exceptions See Monroe Auto Equipment Company. 164 NLRB
No 144
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT E. MULLIN, Trial Examiner The hearing in
the above-numbered consolidated cases began in
Statesboro, Georgia, on August 6, 1968.' On August 7,
the hearing was recessed to allow the General Counsel
time to initiate subpena enforcement proceedings as to
certain witnesses who had failed to appear and testify On
October 29, 1968, the hearing was resumed and the
General Counsel and the Respondent presented all their
witnesses on the issues in Cases 7261, 7323, and 7364. At
that point, however, the General Counsel, having issued a
complaint in No 7450, and the Trial Examiner having
'The hearing in Case 7261 initially opened on April 16, 1968, before
179 NLRB No. 47
J. P STEVENS & CO.
granted a motion to consolidate that case with the three
already in litigation, at the request of the Respondent, the
hearing in the matter was again postponed After the
hearing was resumed on December 10, 1968, a further
continuance became necessary on December 13, 1968,
when attorneys for three of the parties became ill The
hearing was finally resumed on February 3, 1969, and
closed on February 7, 1969
In its respective answers, duly filed, the Respondent
conceded certain facts with respect to its business
operations, but denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices At the hearing, all parties were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, and to argue
orally A motion to dismiss, made by the Respondent at
the close of the hearing, is disposed of as appears
hereinafter in this decision The parties waived oral
argument On April 16, 1969, a brief was submitted by
the General Counsel No briefs were received from any of
the other parties.'
The Motion to Intervene
On December 10, 1968, when the issues in Case 7450
came on for trial, Don F Hughes, et a! , employees of the
Respondent, appeared through their counsel, Attorneys B
Avant Edenfield and Charles H Brown Counsel for the
aforesaid employees moved to intervene in the proceeding
on the ground that Hughes and approximately 100 other
employees who had signed authorization cards wished to
be represented during the course of the hearing on all
issues related to the question as to whether the Union had
a majority in the appropriate unit. Various objections to
this motion, raised by the General Counsel, were
overruled and the motion was granted to the extent that
the Intervenors were allowed to examine and
cross-examine as to all issues raised by their specific
cards. International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers,
AFL-CIO v N L R B, 392 F 2d 801, 809-8 10
(C A D C ), Sagamore Shirt Co , 153 NLRB 309, fn I,
enfd as to this point, sub none , Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America. AFL-CIO v N L R B, 343 F 2d
581 (C A.D C ), Gary Steel Products Corp , 144 NLRB
1160, fn I
Thereafter, throughout the trial on the allegations in
Case 7450, counsel for the Intervenors ably and vigorously
represented the approximately 113 employees who had
moved to intervene. Their counsel were accorded complete
latitude in cross-examining any of the aforesaid employees
whom the General Counsel called to the witness stand. At
the conclusion of the General Counsel's case, the Trial
Examiner heard 35 additional witnesses whom the
Intervenors called to testify as to the circumstances in
which authorization cards were secured from them
Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs
Trial Examiner George A Downing , but that hearing was continued, at the
request of the Respondent , immediately after it opened and without the
taking of any testimony Later this case was consolidated with cases 7323
and 7364 and the presentation of evidence in these three cases was begun
on August 6, 1968
On April 16, 1968 , the General Counsel submitted a two-page motion
to correct the transcript in various particulars A certificate of service
accompanying this motion set out that it was served on all opposing
counsel The parties having filed no opposition thereto, and the Trial
Examiner having duly considered the motion , said motion is granted and
the transcript is corrected in accordance therewith
255
and memoranda of the parties, and from his observation
of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Delaware corporation, with a plant
and place of business located in Statesboro, Georgia, is
engaged there in the manufacture of textile products
During the calendar year prior to issuance of the
complaint, a representative period, the Respondent sold
and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 from its
Statesboro plant directly to customers located outside the
State of Georgia Upon the foregoing facts, which the
Respondent concedes, the Trial Examiner finds that J P
Stevens & Co , Inc , Gulistan Division, is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, herein
called Union, is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Cases 10-CA-7261, -7323, and -7364
A Background and Sequence of Events
Late in January 1968,' the Union initiated an
organizational campaign among the employees at the
Respondent's plant in Statesboro, Georgia Thereafter, the
Respondent engaged in various acts and conduct which
are alleged to have constituted interference, restraint, and
coercion within the meaning of the Act.
On about February 16, the Respondent discharged
Wayne Connor, on March 1, William Gary Akins, and on
March 26, Truman Delano Cribbs On about April 30, it
refused to employ Mary Frances Bradley The
circumstances surrounding these three terminations, and
the one refusal to employ, constitute issues in this case
which are considered hereinafter
B The Union Campaign, Alleged Interference,
Restraint, and Coercion, Findings and Conclusions
with Respect Thereto
In January 1968, the Union began a campaign to
organize the employees at the Statesboro plant Harold
McIver was the principal representative of the Textile
Workers throughout this campaign His assistants, also
organizers for the Union, were Estes J. Riffe and Robert
Best On various days during the latter part of January
and early in February the foregoing stationed themselves
on the access road leading to and from the plant and
distributed union leaflets to the employees On February
12, the Union held its first organizational meeting
Another meeting was held on February 15 On February
17, the Union made the first of several demands for
recognition as the bargaining agent of a production and
maintenance unit at the plant The original and all
subsequent demands were rejected by the Respondent on
'Unless otherwise indicated, all dates are in 1968
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the ground that the latter had a good-faith doubt that the
Union represented a majority of the employees in an
appropriate unit
The General Counsel alleged that throughout the period
from February through April the Respondent engaged in
numerous acts of interference, restraint and coercion To
the issues and the evidence in connection with these
allegations we will now turn
James L Skinner, an employee in the twist department,
testified that, early in February, Supervisor Ben Russell'
asked him what he thought about the organizational
activity According to Skinner, after he had given the
supervisor a noncommittal response, he asked Russell
what he thought about it Skinner testified that the latter
then told him that in his experience some plants had had
violence when a union tried to get in, that in some places
"they close down" and that "if the Union came in [to the
Statesboro plants they would cut out the overtime " When
on the stand, Supervisor Russell conceded that he had had
a conversation with Skinner at the time and place in
question and that it might have occurred during working
hours He further conceded that he told the employee that
from what he knew about the Union there "would be a lot
of violence involved," but he denied having predicted that
a union victory would result in a loss of overtime Upon
an appraisal of all the circumstances here and the
demeanor of these two witnesses in their appearance on
the stand, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that
Skinner's version of this conversation is the more
accurate
Charles A. Gay, an employee, testified that on about
February 12, Personnel Manager Carroll L Herrington
asked that he come to the office and that while he was
there the personnel manager asked "What do you
boys want" and then, in a reference to the union
handbills, said "I advise you to burn them or bring them
to me " Gay testified that during the same conversation,
Herrington asked whether Gay was going to the union
meeting which was scheduled for that night According to
Gay, when he answered this question in the affirmative,
the personnel manager asked that he return the next day
and report who was at the meeting and who had signed
cards Gay testified that the following day Herrington
questioned him as to the number who had attended the
union meeting the night before and that the latter further
asked whether those present were mostly Negroes or
whites According to Gay, Herrington concluded the
conversation when he (Gay) told him that he did not know
the answers to his questions and that, in any event, he was
not supposed to tell him Gay further testified that this
same morning, Dan Rushing, dye house supervisor,
approached him and asked whether Gay had attended the
union meeting the preceding evening According to Gay,
after answering in the affirmative, he cautioned the
supervisor that it was against the law to ask such
questions Gay testified that Rushing thereupon stated
that he was sorry and questioned him no further
Gay's version of his conversation with Rushing was
both credible and undenied His testimony as to his
meetings with the personnel manager, however, was
contradicted Herrington testified that Gay approached his
'The supervisory status of Russell was conceded by the Respondent The
Respondent made a similar concession as to all , except one , of the other
individuals whom the General Counsel alleged as supervisors within the
meaning of the Act Consequently , there will be no discussion of this
matter hereinafter in this decision , except as to Joseph W Brown , the one
individual whose supervisory status is in dispute
office on various occasions and that at these times the
employee volunteered information about the Union and
averred that he himself did not intend to have anything to
do with it Herrington could not recall the dates of any
such conversations and testified that he paid no attention
to the general comments about the Union which Gay
customarily made during these encounters Herrington's
characterization of Gay, which placed the employee in the
role of a hypocritical busybody, did not square with the
impression which Gay made while a witness for the
General Counsel He was, throughout his appearance on
both direct and cross-examination, a persuasive and
convincing witness For that reason, it is the Trial
Examiner's conclusion that his testimony must be, and it
is, accepted as the more credible account of what was said
during his conversations with Personnel Manager
Herrington
On February 15, Edwin Bachman, who was then plant
manager for the Respondent, spoke about the union
campaign to all of the employees at work that day
Bachman spoke on three different occasions, in each
instance to the assembled employees of the shift then on
duty From the testimony of those present it appears that
he gave substantially the same speech to each group
Bachman told the employees that the Company planned
to resist the Union by all possible, legal, means In
connection with the authorization cards which the
organizers were soliciting, he cautioned the employees that
notwithstanding anything the union representatives might
say, there would come a time when the cards would be
laid on the table for all to see He further told the
employees that anyone observed conducting union
activities on the job would be discharged and that
anybody found talking for the Union in the plant, or
disturbing anybody on the job, would be dismissed 5
At the hearing Sheppard conceded that prior to
Bachman's speech no rule had been posted which
prohibited, under penalty of discharge, employee
solicitation or discussion of union matters during working
hours He further testified that the first time such a rule
was even enunciated to anyone other than supervisors was
in Bachman's speech
Several employees testified, credibly and without
contradiction, that the plant management often permitted
solicitation of the employees during working time for such
matters as a flower fund in the event of illness or death of
a coworker or of a member of an employee's family, the
sale of raffle tickets to support baseball and basketball
teams, and appeals for blood donors for the bloodmobile
Plant Manager Sheppard testified that he was aware of
such activities in the plant He conceded that these
solicitations were authorized by the management and that
they were carried on during working hours
Wayne E Moore, an employee in the spinning
department, testified that on February 15, Supervisor Bill
Hart asked what he thought of the speech which Plant
Manager Bachman had just given According to Moore,
in his reply he told the supervisor that he thought the
Union was a good thing Moore testified that Hart
thereupon told him that he was disappointed that Moore
'The foregoing summation of Bachman's speeches to the employees is
derived from the mutually corroborative testimony of employees Roosevelt
Love, Verdell Finch , James D Miller , Charles A Gay , Myrtle Marie
Cribbs and Joe Oglesby , and of Enman J Sheppard The latter , who was
present during Bachman ' s speeches , was assistant plant manager at the
time and later became plant manager when Bachman subsequently left the
company employ Bachman was never called as a witness for the
Respondent
J. P. STEVENS & CO
should feel that way According to the employee, Hart
concluded the conversation by stating that if the Union
came in the plant, he was "almost willing to bet that the
Company would cut back the work to one or two days per
week " Moore's testimony in this regard was credible It
also was uncontradicted and undenied, for Hart, although
a witness for the Respondent was asked no questions
about this incident.
Ronald D Bowen, a dyehouse employee on the third
shift, testified that on the night of February 15 and after
Bachman had made the speech described above, he was
questioned about the Union by Dye House Supervisor
Alvin Kicklighter According to Bowen, Kicklighter
opened the conversation by stating that he thought
Bachman had made a good point about the likelihood that
the Union would have to put all the cards on his desk and
disclose who had signed Bowen testified that the
supervisor then stated that he would like to attend one of
the union meetings himself According to Bowen, about
two hours later, Kicklighter came back to where he was at
work and questioned him as to whether he thought the
Union would really help the employees Bowen testified
that Kicklighter then told him that he had been requested
by Plant Manager Bachman to ask that Bowen ascertain
which employees were supporting the Union and which
were not and that Kicklighter concluded the conversation
by stating that he knew the names of all the employees
who had been at the last union meeting Bowen testified
that the following night Kicklighter questioned him about
the Union on two different occasions The first time,
according to the employee, Kicklighter asked whether he
had heard any coworkers mention the Union and about
two hours later he questioned Bowen as to whether he had
heard anything about another union meeting
When called as a witness for the Respondent,
Kicklighter denied that he had ever been instructed by
Plant Manager Bachman to ask that Bowen report to him
about the Union On the other hand, on
cross-examination, Kicklighter conceded that he had
questioned Bowen as to whether he had been to any union
meetings and that he also had asked the employee to let
him know who was attending the meetings
Bowen was a credible, albeit a very reluctant witness
He was called as a witness for the General Counsel and
appeared at the hearing only after the General Counsel
secured a court order enforcing the subpoena which had
been served on him At the time of the hearing he was still
working in the dye house under Kicklighter's supervision
In view of these circumstances, the Trial Examiner
concludes and finds that, insofar as there is a conflict
between the testimony of Bowen and Kicklighter, the
testimony of the former is worthy of greater credence
During this period the union organizers frequently
stationed themselves at the junction of the plant access
road and U S Highway 301 The junction was at a
distance of less than a mile from the plant itself
Employee James D Miller testified that on about
February 16, he met Union Representative Estes Riffe at
this point and spent about 30 minutes talking with him
about the campaign According to Miller, shortly after he
began this conversation with Riffe, an automobile drew up
to a point about 50 yards away and parked along the road
where he and Riffe could be observed at close range
Miller testified that there were two men in the car, Enman
Sheppard, the assistant plant manager, and Erquitt
Marsh, the payroll manager According to Miller's
credible and uncontradicted testimony, neither Sheppard
nor Marsh left the car Instead they remained in that spot
257
for approximately 20 minutes and in plain view of him
and Riffe The Respondent never called Marsh as a
witness Sheppard, of course, did testify, but was asked no
questions about this incident
Charles Gay testified that on about February 22, Plant
Superintendent Paul Aikens came to where Gay was
working and asked what he knew about the rumors that
were circulating in the plant When Gay asked whether
Aikens was referring to the Union, the latter answered in
the affirmative According to Gay, he then answered the
plant official with an acknowledgement that he had filled
out an authorization card and had attended union
meetings Aikens categorically denied having discussed the
Union with Gay, but the testimony of the latter was more
credible
Employee Roosevelt Love testified as to a conversation
had sometime in March with Plant Manager Sheppard
According to Love, he asked Sheppard whether the plant
would close if the Union came in, and Sheppard replied
that he was unable to answer that question Love also
testified that he asked whether the employees would keep
whatever benefits they had if the Union did not succeed in
coming in, and that Sheppard assured him that the
employees would not lose any benefits under those
circumstances Sheppard gave no testimony as to this
meeting with employee Love
Employee James D Miller testified that early in March
he went to see Superintendent Paul Aikens and, after
telling him that he had signed a union card and was a
member of the organizing committee, he complained to
Aikens that fixers in the card department were getting 8
cents an hour more than those in the spinning department
According to Miller, Aikens then told him "If 8 cents is
all that is bothering you, I will lay my job on the table for
an 8 cent raise [for you] if you will back out from
that union activity " Aikens denied that he had promised
Miller a raise on condition he cease his union activity, but
he conceded that he might have asked Miller whether a
raise would satisfy him and keep him happy Miller was
called to the stand several times during the extended
hearing He was a very persuasive witness who impressed
the Trial Examiner with his candor and honesty In
connection with this incident it is the Trial Examiner's
conclusion that Miller's version of the conversation with
Aikens is the more accurate "
Employees Roosevelt Love and Joe Oglesby testified
that on about March 10, they asked Bill Hart, Bob
Buckalew, and Bob Stepto, all three of whom were card
room supervisors, as to the validity of rumors that the
mill would close if the Union came in Love testified that
Hart told them that the employees would have to ask
higher authorities for an answer to that question and that
Buckalew told them of his personal experience at another
plant where the advent of a union had resulted in closure
Stepto, however, according to Love, answered their
question with an emphatic statement in the affirmative as
to the prospects of the plant's closing should the Union
organize the employees Oglesby testified that Stepto said
that if the Union won, "J P Stevens will throw away this
plant dust like I am throwing away that nickel " Both
'Miller also testified that on the same day as this incident Aikens
arranged for him to meet with Plant Manager Sheppard and that at this
time, he asked the latter whether the mill would close if the union came in
The General Counsel apparently relies upon Miller's testimony to establish
that Sheppard answered this question in the affirmative In fact, however,
Miller testified that Sheppard stated that the plant would close down only
if the Union, after coming in, asked for higher wages than the Company
could afford to pay
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Love and Oglesby were credible witnesses and their
testimony in this regard was neither contradicted nor
denied by Hart, Buckalew or Stepto
On April 22 to 23, a Board-conducted election was held
at the plant Employee James D Miller testified that
shortly before the election, Supervisor Bill Hart told him
"J D , I've got a little pull out here If you will back
out of this Union . If I can help you in any way, or if
there is anything bothering you, I will see if I can get
it for you " Hart denied that he had made any such
promise to Miller and denied that he ever discussed the
Union with the employee He conceded, however, that he
had had a discussion with Miller about the wage rate
which Miller was getting as a fixer As to this conflict, it
is the Trial Examiner's conclusion that here, again, Miller
was more credible than the supervisor
Verdell Finch, an inspector on the second shift, testified
that, about two weeks before the election, Robert Foisey,
quality control supervisor, told her that if the Union came
in the plant would close According to Finch, Foisey told
her that Stevens had 74 plants, none of which was
organized, and that the Statesboro mill "was just too
small to, and too new, to carry a Union " Finch testified
that Foisey concluded the conversation by questioning her
as to how she planned to vote in the election Finch's
testimony was credible, and it was neither denied nor
contradicted, for Foisey was not called as a witness
Mrs. Finch further testified that at a time shortly
before the election, employees who were opposed to the
Union were discussing the question as to what the
Company might do if the Union won the election
According to Finch, Supervisor Ben Russell was present,
and, despite the fact that it was during worktime, Russell
made no effort to suppress the talking Instead, according
to Finch, Russell joined in the discussion and predicted
that "if the Union came in, the plant would close down "
Russell denied that he had ever made such a prediction as
that which Mrs Finch attributed to him On the other
hand, he testified that he did not know her very well and
he conceded that he could not recall any such conversation
as that she described Finch was a witness called by the
General Counsel after the subpena enforcement
proceedings She was still in the Respondent's employ and
when she eventually took the stand, her testimony
impressed the Trial Examiner as being frank and honest
Under the circumstances, it seems most unlikely that she
would fabricate a purported conversation with Russell It
is the Trial Examiner's conclusion that, in fact, she did
not do so, and that her testimony in which she attributed
to Supervisor Russell the threat of a plant closing was
credible
Mrs Finch also testified that on about April 19, and
while in the plant smoking room, she had a conversation
about the Union with Superintendent Paul Aikens
According to Finch, when she asked Aikens whether he
thought the mill would close if the Union came in, he
answered her in the affirmative and added that the
Company was already "moving things out " Finch
testified that shortly thereafter she asked the same
question of Personnel Manager Herrington According to
Finch, Herrington agreed with the forecast made by
Aikens and told her that he thought that the advent of the
Union would result in plant closure Aikens denied that he
had made any such prediction to Finch, although he
conceded that he had discussed the Union with her on at
least one occasion Herrington on the other hand, neither
denied nor contradicted Finch's testimony It is the Trial
Examiner's conclusion that the conversations occurred
substantially as she testified.
Myrtle Marie Cribbs, an employee in the spinning
department, testified to a conversation had about April 20
with Plant Manager Sheppard According to the
employee, she questioned Sheppard as to whether he had
assured employee James D Miller that the plant would
not close if the Union won the election. Cribbs testified on
direct examination that the plant manager told her she
was mistaken, that he had told Miller that he felt sure the
plant would close if the Union sought to secure higher
wages than Stevens was paying at its other plants. On
cross-examination, however, Mrs Cribbs agreed that a
more accurate rendition of what Sheppard had said was
that "if the Union came in and forced the Company to
pay higher wages than [it paid in its other plants that
would close it down "
James D Miller testified that on April 25, and after the
Union's defeat in the election that week, Plant
Superintendent Aikens told him that he had heard that
Miller had been active in supporting the Union, but that
now that "the damn Union had come and gone he
didn't want to hear me say anymore about it" Miller's
testimony as to this conversation was credible and was not
denied or contradicted by any testimony given by Aikens
Roy E Chester, an employee in the twisting and
winding department, was called as a witness for the
General Counsel When questioned as to whether he had
talked with Supervisor Robert Foisey on about February
19, Chester averred that he could not remember any such
conversation
Chester had previously given a signed affidavit to a
field examiner during the General Counsel's investigation
of the case The affidavit was dated February 27, 1968,
and bore a signature which Chester identified as his own
The employee conceded that the affidavit "looks like a
statement I signed " After Chester acknowledged
having signed the affidavit, but continued to testify that it
did not refresh his recollection, the General Counsel
offered the affidavit under the doctrine of past recollection
recorded for the truth of the matters related therein
At the hearing, the Trial Examiner reserved ruling on
this offer After a consideration of the issue here involved,
it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the
affidavit should be, and it is, received, as affirmative
evidence of the conversation in question. N L R B v J C
Penney Co , 384 F 2d 479, 484 (C A 10). Wigmore on
Evidence (3d ed ), Vol 111, Sec 734, 754, Jones on
Evidence (4th ed ) vol 11, Sec 974
In his affidavit, Chester averred that on February 19,
Supervisor Foisey asked him "Did you get anything out of
the meeting'"" and that on the following day Foisey told
him "the bad things about unions He told me about some
plants that had closed down because the union was trying
to get in." Presumptively, the General Counsel is relying
on the question attributed to Foisey as having referred to
a union meeting. In the context of the entire affidavit, this
presumption has some support. On the other hand,
standing alone as it appears in the one paragraph on the
issue, the question is rather ambiguous If Chester's
recollection had enabled him to testify about this
interrogation, he might have cleared up this ambiguity
On the record as it stands, however, the portion of the
affidavit in question will not support the contention of the
General Counsel that on February 19, Foisey unlawfully
interrogated Chester as to his union activities
On February 21, the Union filed a representation
petition in which it sought a Board-conducted election in a
production and maintenance unit J P Stevens & Co ,
J. P. STEVENS & CO.
Inc., Case 10-RC-7342 It was undenied that on about
March 12, while the representation matter was pending,
the Respondent unilaterally granted an 18-minute
lunchbreak and various other benefits to the employees
involved in the representation proceeding
A number of employee witnesses testified that on about
March 1, management officials met with groups of
employees from each shift and volunteered to hear any
complaints they cared to present James D. Miller, an
employee in the spinning department , testified that along
with half the employees in his department , he attended a
meeting in the plant office at which Assistant Manager
Sheppard and Payroll Manager Erquitt Marsh were in
charge According to Miller, Sheppard and Marsh opened
the meeting by stating that they would listen to any of the
problems which the employees wished to present , that they
would take notes on the complaints , but that they could
not answer or discuss any of them Miller, an employee of
the Respondent for over six years, testified that this was
the first meeting of its kind he had ever been asked to
attend Myrtle Marie Cribbs, another employee , testified
that at the meeting for employees in her department,
Marsh was accompanied by Plant Superintendent Paul
Aikens According to Mrs Cribbs , Aikens and Marsh
told those present that Plant Manager Bachman wanted to
find out why the employees were so dissatisfied From the
record , it appears that the employees complained
primarily about the plant practice of requiring the
employees to eat lunch at their machines without the
benefit of any lunch period , the lack of any sheltered
walkway to the parking lot during inclement weather and
the number of soft drink machines which were inoperable
It was undenied that in mid-March and about 2 weeks
after these meetings with the employees, the management
notified the employees that henceforth they would be
permitted an 18-minute lunchbreak on each shift, that
during this period they could shut off their machines, and
that, instead , of having to eat at their duty stations, the
employees thereafter could sit down at tables and chairs
which were being provided for this purpose The
employees were also informed that during rainy weather
they would be permitted to use various passageways
through the plant which would enable them to reach the
parking lot with a minimum of exposure In addition,
more coke and vending machines were installed and the
periods on each shift when smoking was permitted were
-xtended
As found earlier herein, on February 15, Plant
Manager Bachman announced that any discussion of the
union or solicitation on its behalf within the plant was
forbidden and would be cause for discharge The General
Counsel presented many witnesses who testified credibly
and without contradiction that, notwithstanding this rule,
no sanctions were imposed on employees who were
opposed to the Union and who actively engaged in
anti-union discussions and activities during working hours
Joe Oglesby testified that , about 2 weeks before the
election , employees Hubert Jenkins , Carl Andrews, and
Woody Royal sought to enlist his support in a campaign
against the Union Roosevelt Love, whose testimony
corroborated that of Oglesby, testified that during this
period Jenkins came to him during working hours and
solicited his signature on a list of employees who planned
to vote against the Union Love and Oglesby reported this
incident to Supervisor Bill Hart, and, in doing so, told the
latter the names of the employees engaged in the
antiunion solicitation Hart disclaimed all knowledge of
the alleged antiunion activities and declined to say what, if
259
anything, he would do about the protest from Love and
Oglesby The latter two employees testified that thereafter
the antiunion activities of Royal, Jenkins, and Andrews
continued unabated
Verdell Finch testified that she voiced a similar
complaint to Plant Superintendent Aikens and Supervisor
Ben Russell about antiunion activities during working
time in her department According to Finch,
notwithstanding her protest to the management, there was
no slackening of the antiunion discussions during working
hours
Early in March, James D Miller, Jerry Gerrald,
Charles Nessmith, Joe Beasley, and Floyd Miller, all of
whom were prounion, asked for a conference with
Assistant Plant Manager Sheppard. At this meeting,
Miller and his associates presented to Sheppard a list of
17 employees who were engaged during working hours in
a campaign against the Union, and they asked why, if the
Company would tolerate such activity, they, in turn, could
not engage in the same type of effort on behalf of the
Union Sheppard declined to grant the request, declared
that there would be no campaigning of any kind inside the
plant and promised that he would talk to the employees
on the list Miller testified that subsequent to this meeting
with the management, the antiunion activities of the
employees whose names had been reported to Sheppard
continued as before
Sheppard testified that after Miller and his group met
with him he spoke to some of the supervisors and told
them that the antiunion campaigning of the named
employees should be stopped He conceded, however, that
he had no recollection of ever calling any of the employees
involved to his office
Concluding Findings
On February 15, Plant Manager Bachman announced
to all employees that thereafter any solicitation or
discussion of the Union on company premises was
prohibited and that those who did so would be subject to
discharge. About April 25, and after the election, Plant
Superintendent Paul Aikens, upon hearing that employee
James D Miller was still talking for the Union, thereupon
informed Miller in the most emphatic terms that he was
to engage in no more such discussion It is clear from the
record that the rule which Bachman promulgated to the
employees on February 15 was applicable to the
employees at all times while they were in the plant,
regardless of whether they were at their machines or on
their own time in nonworking areas on the premises
The Respondent's announcement of this rule was made
at the very outset of the Union's organizational campaign.
Notwithstanding its prohibition on the discussion of, or
solicitation for, the Union in the plant, the Respondent,
both before and after February 15, permitted a variety of
solicitations to be made of the employees while they were
at work Furthermore, there was substantial evidence, as
found above, that antiunion groups of employees were
permitted to engage in discussion and activities opposed to
the Union without being reprimanded
The Board and the courts have held that an employer
may not prohibit employees from soliciting for the Union
on their own time in nonworking areas of a plant unless it
can be shown that special circumstances made the rule
necessary in order to maintain production or discipline.
Ridgewood Management Company, Inc v N L R B, 410
F 2d 738 (C A. 5), SNC Manufacturing Co, Inc, 174
NLRB No 31, Sparks Nugget, Inc, 161 NLRB 1195,
260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1196, Stoddard Quirk Manufacturing Company, 138
NLRB 615, 616-623; Walton Manufacturing Company,
126 NLRB 697, 698-699, enfd 289 F 2d 177 (C.A. 5),
N L R B v United Aircraft Corp , 324 F 2d 128, 130-132
(C A 2), cert denied 376 U S 951 The Respondent here
made no attempt to establish any such special
circumstances which justified the imposition of this rule
Consequently, in view of the fact that the rule was
announced immediately after the Union initiated its
organizational efforts, the fact that the rule was applied to
prohibit prounion activity, but was not enforced as to
antiunion activity or as to solicitations unrelated to the
union campaign, and the fact that the rule applied to the
employees even when on their own time in nonworking
areas of the plant, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds
that the rule in question, and the Respondent's
enforcement thereof, violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
The Trial Examiner likewise concludes and finds that it
was a violation of the same section of the Act for the
Respondent in mid-March, and while an employee
election was pending, unilaterally to grant a luncheon
break and other benefits to the employees in the unit
involved in the representation proceeding.
The Trial Examiner further concludes and finds that the
Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the
actions and conduct of its supervisory personnel as set
forth below
(1) Supervisor Ben Russell's interrogation of employee
James Skinner early in February as to his union
sympathies and Russell's statement that "if the Union
came in [the Statesboro plant] would cut out the
overtime "
(2) Personnel Manager Carroll L Herrington's
interrogation of employee Charles A Gay, on about
February 12 and 13, as to Gay's knowledge of union
activities among the employees, as well as Herrington's
request that Gay report to him on what had occurred at
the union meetings
(3) Supervisor Dan Rushing's interrogation of employee
Charles A Gay on about February 13, as to whether Gay
had attended a union meeting the night before
(4) Supervisor Bill Hart's interrogation on about
February 15 of employee Wayne Moore as to his union
sympathies and Hart's prediction that if the Union
succeeded in organizing the employees "the Company
would cut back the work to one or two days per week "
(5) Supervisor Alvin Kicklighter's interrogation of
employee Ronald D Bowen, on about February 15 and
16, as to the latter's knowledge of union activities among
the employees and Kicklighter's request that Bowen report
to the Respondent on the union activities of his
coworkers
(6) Supervisor Alvin Kicklighter's creating the
impression of surveillance of employee union activities by
telling employee Ronald Bowen that a report had come to
the management as to the identities of all those employees
who attended the union meeting on February 15
(7) The surveillance on about February 16 by Assistant
Plant Manager Enman J. Sheppard and Payroll Manager
Erquitt Marsh of the meeting which employee James D
Miller had with Union Representative Estes Riffe on the
plant access road
(8) Plant Superintendent Paul Aikens' interrogation on
about February 22, of employee Charles Gay as to the
union activities and sympathies of the latter
(9) Plant Superintendent Paul Aikens' promise to
employee James D. Miller, made in March, that the latter
would get a raise if he would withdraw from the Union.
(10) Supervisor Bob Stepto's prediction on about
March 10 to employees Roosevelt Love and Joe Oglesby
that the plant would close if the Union was successful in
organizing the employees
(11) Supervisor Bill Hart's promise to employee James
D Miller shortly before the election that he would "help"
Miller provided that the latter "back out of this Union "
(12) Supervisor Robert Foisey's questioning of
employee Verdell Finch as to how she was going to vote
and his prediction, voiced to her about the middle of
April, that "if the Union came in the plant would
definitely close down "
(13) Supervisor Ben Russell's forecast made to
employee Verdell Finch and several other employees
shortly before the election that if the Union won, the plant
would close down
(14) Personnel Manager Herrington's statement to
employee Verdell Finch shortly after April 19 that he
thought the plant would close if the Union was successful
in its campaign to organize the employees, and a similar
threat made to this employee by Plant Superintendent
Paul Aikens during the same period
C The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(3),
Contentions of the Partier, Findings and Conclusions
with Respect thereto
1. Wayne Connor
a The supervisory status of Joseph W Brown
In its answer, the Respondent initially conceded
Brown's supervisory status. After the hearing had been in
progress for sometime, the Respondent, in effect, moved
to amend its answer so as to deny that Brown was a
supervisor at the time in question This motion was
granted.
Several witnesses for the General Counsel referred to
Brown as an assistant foreman in the maintenance
department during the period immediately prior to
Connor's discharge This was denied by the Respondent
According to the latter, it was not until after Connor's
termination that Brown was promoted to supervisor The
Respondent contends that before his promotion Brown
was only a leadman
Brown testified that he was a leadman in the
maintenance department for about 2 years During that
period Jerry Hynco was the departmental supervisor
Plant Manager Sheppard testified that shortly after
Bachman's speech to the employees on February 15,
Hynco went on a leave of absence and that Brown took
over Hynco's duties According to Brown, he was
promoted to supervisor on February 23.
Brown testified that as a leadman he did not attend
meetings of the supervisors, discipline employees, make
any decisions on promotions, demotions, or pay and that
he worked at manual labor about half of the time On the
other hand, Brown testified that when Hynco was out of
the plant, or off duty, he assigned work orders to the men
in the department and that if they had problems they
came to him for assistance Brown testified that if, at such
a time, overtime became available he selected those to
whom such work was given Brown further testified that
when Hynco was on vacation, he filled in the timecards
for the employees and that the plant superintendent
approved them.
Plant Manager Sheppard testified that, even as a
leadman, Brown had prerequisites substantially above
J. P. STEVENS & CO
those of the rank and file in the maintenance department
Thus, Brown was on a salary, whereas the other
maintenance employees were not Although Brown
punched a timeclock, this was done only to keep account
of the hours he worked ' Brown received a 2-week
vacation each year, whereas the employees received l
week He also had sick leave benefits, but the employees
had none Along with Hynco, Brown also had a key to the
departmental office and a desk in that office
Brown never gave an answer when questioned on
cross-examination as to how much he was paid when still
a leadman When pressed for a response he evaded
answering and never disclosed what he was paid for
regular time or overtime He was likewise evasive when
testifying as to the extent of his authority when Hynco
was out of the plant or on vacation Although he was very
specific in testifying that he was not promoted to
supervisor until February 23, he had an extremely hazy
recollection as to when it was that Hynco went on a leave
of absence Sheppard, of course, had conceded that Brown
took over Hynco's duties when the latter went on leave 8
For the hearing in the unfair labor practice case, the
Respondent prepared lists of all employees in the unit on
each of four different dates from February 17 to April 22
Brown's name does not appear on any of these lists Most
significantly, it does not appear on the list of employees in
the unit as of February 17 This would tend to prove that
even as of the latter date, the Respondent itself no longer
considered Brown a leadman and a member of the unit
The Respondent never offered any documentation or
personnel records to support, or corroborate, Brown's
testimony as to when it was that he officially assumed the
duties of a supervisor Nor was any evidence supplied as
to what difference, if any, there was in Brown 's salary
before and after February 23 In view of Brown 's extreme
reluctance to answer any questions about his salary before
and after he took over Hynco's position and his lack of
candor generally, it is the conclusion of the Trial
Examiner that, at least for some while prior to February
23, and at all times material herein, Brown had a
supervisory status within the meaning of the Act
b Connor's work history and discharge, findings and
conclusions with respect thereto
Wayne Connor was hired by the Respondent in
February 1962 After approximately two years in the
shipping department, he transferred to the maintenance
department where he remained until February 16, 1968,
when he was discharged
Connor's starting wage was $1 15 per hour At the time
of his termination he was receiving $2 16 per hour In the
maintenance department Connor worked under Jerry
Hynco, the departmental head, and Joseph W Brown,
Hynco's assistant
Connor was among the first of the employees to
become active in the Union He signed a card late in
January and shortly thereafter he began soliciting his
coworkers to join the Textile Workers Early in February,
'As a leadman , Brown received overtime pay equal to one and one half
his regular salary
'Sheppard also testified that the Board had ruled that Brown was
"eligible to vote" in the election This statement was ambiguous at best
The Regional Director ' s Decision and Direction of Election included
leadmen in the voting unit The plant manager may have meant that if
Brown had been a leadman at the time of the election he could have voted
There was no evidence , however , that Brown ever voted or even attempted
to cast a challenged ballot
261
Connor met Union Representative McIver on the access
road leading to the plant and the latter gave him a supply
of authorization cards Connor testified that during the
next few days he secured from 12 to 13 signed
authorization cards from his fellow employees He
estimated that during this period he talked with
approximately 50 of the employees about the Union
Connor attended the two union meetings held on February
12 and 15 and signed up as a member of the employees'
organizing committee.
Connor's union activities did not go unnoticed On
about February 8, Connor met McIver on the access road
near the plant and spent several minutes discussing the
organizational campaign while Mclver handed out leaflets
to the Respondent's employees who were going to, or
leaving, the plant It was undenied that while this
conversation was in progress, Supervisor Hynco drove up,
stopped for a leaflet and left Brown also appeared on the
scene and parked his car near the side of the road for
several minutes before driving away.
Connor testified that the day after his conversation with
Mclver, Brown came up to him at work and told him
"Wayne, you had better not be going around and talking
for the Union because if you do, you are going to get
fired, because everybody in the front office knows you
were out on the road yesterday talking to the Union "
According to Connor, later that same day, Brown
questioned him as to how many in the maintenance shop
were for the Union Connor testified that he told Brown
that he thought everyone was
Charles L Nessmith, also an employee in the
maintenance department under Hynco and Brown,
testified that on this same day, Brown told him that the
day before he had seen Connor on the road, talking with a
union representative According to Nessmith, Brown
concluded the conversation with the comment that if
Connor "didn't watch it he would get fired, if he kept
talking "
Nessmith testified that on February 17, and the day
after Connor's termination, he had a conversation with
Brown wherein he inquired as to why Connor had been
discharged According to Nessmith, Brown told him that
"he didn't know what they put down, but . he knew
why that he had told him a couple of days before that
if he (Connor) didn't quit messing with the Union he
would lose his lob "
Jerry Gerrald, another employee in the maintenance
department, testified that on about February 18, he
complained to Brown about Connor's discharge
According to Gerrald, Brown replied that he had tried to
tell Connor "a week or so ago [that] if he didn't shut his
mouth he was going to get fired " Gerrald testified that,
in concluding this same conversation, Brown told him that
Connor "would not be the only one" to get fired.
At the hearing, Hynco testified that he knew about the
union activities in which the employees were engaged and
that he assumed that Connor was involved Brown denied
having made any of the antiunion comments attributed to
him by the employees quoted above, gut he conceded that
he might have seen Connor talking with McIver on
February 8 Both Nessmith and Gerrald were still working
at the plant and under Brown 's supervision at the time
they testified, a factor which was reflected in their
reluctance to testify about Brown when on the stand
Nevertheless, their testimony, as well as that of Connor,
was credible, whereas Brown 's denials were not The Trial
Examiner concludes and finds that the various
conversations with Brown, related in the testimony of
26 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Connor, Nessmith and Gerrald set forth above, occurred
substantially as those employees testified
Connor testified, credibly and without contradiction,
that at the end of his shift on February 16, Supervisor
Hynco sent him to the office of Personnel Manager
Herrington According to Connor, Herrington told him
that he was being discharged for having had to do over
two jobs that day and for having violated a safety rule
At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the
Respondent stated that Connor was terminated because
his attitude toward supervision was unsatisfactory, because
his work was unsatisfactory and because he had disobeyed
orders shortly before his discharge Supervisor Hynco,
however, testified that the sole reason for Connor's
dismissal was his violation of a safety rule on February
16
As described by Hynco, on the day in question, Connor
and a fellow employee, one Malcolm Mock, were at work
on a kettle in the dye house Hynco testified that when he
inspected the job while the repair work was still in
progress he discovered that there was no safety tag on the
electric motor to prevent other employees from
inadvertently starting the machine According to Hynco,
when he admonished Connor about this deficiency, the
latter told him that the job was almost completed Hynco
testified that about 45 minutes later he returned to this
location and discovered that the job was not finished, that
the current was on and that there was still no safety tag
on the electric motor Hynco thereupon prepared a
termination slip for Connor in which he set forth the
details described above
At the hearing, the Respondent introduced two other
written reprimands which appeared in Connor's personnel
file One, dated July 13, 1965, and prepared by Hynco,
alleged that Connor was insubordinate and had threatened
Hynco with bodily harm if the latter discharged him This
reprimand bore Connor's signature and an
acknowledgement that he had read it
The other reprimand offered in evidence was dated
October 28, 1967 In this document, likewise prepared by
Hynco, the latter alleged that on an occasion of that date,
when Hynco admonished Connor for wasting time by
drinking coffee in the shop, the employee became abusive
and used foul language in expressing his disdain for the
plant and Hynco This reprimand was not signed by
Connor, although there was a line on it for the employee's
signature Moreover, there was no evidence that the
employee himself was ever shown this particular written
reprimand
At the time of the incident on February 16, Connor was
working on the kettle in the dye house along with
Malcolm Mock When on the stand, Hynco at first
referred to Mock as Connor's helper Later, during his
cross-examination, however, he conceded that Mock was
classified as a general mechanic, the same as Connor, that
Mock drew the same rate of pay as Connor, and that he
had the same duties and responsibilities as Connor He
further conceded that Mock was not, in fact, subordinate
to Connor at the time in question Hynco likewise
admitted that, notwithstanding Mock's joint participation
in, and responsibility for the repair work which lead to
Connor's dismissal, he had said nothing to Mock about
noncompliance with plant safety rules
Connor may have had an abrasive personality which
Hynco found difficult in 1965 and again in 1967, as
reflected in the reprimand notices It also appears that a
plant safety rule was violated on February 16, 1968 The
record establishes, however, that this latter violation was
incurred on a job on which Connor and Mock were
coworkers There is no requirement in the Act, that an
employer be evenhanded in meting out discipline to his
employees In the present instance, however, the contrast
between the immediate dismissal accorded Connor and the
admitted total lack of any admonition to Mock is strong
evidence that the real reason for Connor's discharge was
not the one offered by the Respondent 9 In view of the
disparate treatment accorded Connor, the animus toward
the Union displayed by the Respondent as soon as the
organizational campaign began, Supervisor Brown's
warning to Connor that the plant management knew of
Connor's involvement in the campaign and that he would
get fired if this continued, Brown's reiteration of this
warning about Connor in a conversation with employee
Nessmith that same day, and Brown's statement,
subsequent to Connor's termination to both employees
Nessmith and Gerrald that Connor had been discharged
for "messing with the Union," the Trial Examiner
concludes and finds that the Respondent's real motivation
for Connor's dismissal was his union activities In
discharging him for this reason, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act It was likewise a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, for Brown to interrogate
Connoi as to his union activities, threaten Connor with
discharge for continued association with the union
organizers, voice the conclusion to other employees after
Connor's termination that the dismissal had resulted from
Connor's identification with the Union, and predict that
Connor "would not be the only one" to meet the same
fate
2 William Gary Akins
Akins was employed from May 1965 until March 1,
1968, on which latter date he was discharged Initially he
worked in the twisting department under Supervisor Bill
Hart where his rate of pay was $1 60 an hour When
terminated Akins was in the production control
department under Supervisor Walter Pease For some
while he had been on a salary, originally at $72 per week
and by the time of his discharge at the rate of $86 per
week
On February 15, Akins attended the union meeting held
at Cooperville There he signed an authorization card and
joined the organizational committee During the next 2
weeks he attended three more organizational meetings
Just before the end of his shift on March I, Supervisor
Pease called Akins to his office and told him that he was
being discharged for not getting along with the
supervisors, for being out too much on weekends and for
talking too much At the hearing, Pease testified that at
the conclusion of his statement to Akins the employee
protested that he was being discharged "because of the
Union " Pease did not voice any denial of Akins'
comment. Instead, according to Pease himself, he only
said, "Now, Gary, you said that, I didn't "
Akins testified that on an occasion late in January,
when he was in the production control office both
Supervisor Pease and Personnel Manager Herrington
spoke to him about the Union According to Akins, Pease
told him that although the Union had launched an
"'The abruptness of a discharge and its timing are persuasive evidence as
to motivation " N L R B v Montgomery Ward & Co , 242 F 2d 497, 502
(C A 2), cert denied 355 U S 829 See also N L R B v Dorn's
Transportation Company . Inc, 405 F 2d 706, 713 (C A 2), N L R B v
Svnionc Mfg Co , 328 F 2d 835, 837 (C A 7)
J P. STEVENS & CO. 263
organizational campaign, since Akins was on salary, this
should not affect him Akins testified that before
concluding the conversation, Pease asked him to let them
know if he saw any group of people talking about the
Union and Herrington commented that the Union was no
good for the town, the community or the employees
Akins testified that immediately after he attended the
union meeting on February 15, Pease came to question
him as to whether he had been to any meetings.
According to Akins, after he answered this question in the
affirmative, Pease questioned him as to the number of
employees in attendance. Akins testified that during the
course of their discussion he told the supervisor that he
had signed up as a member of the organizing committee
According to Akins, about a week later, Pease told him
that he had been hearing "bad things" about him, that
Akins had been talking too much and that he should be
careful as to what he said Akins testified that his
supervisor reminded him that he was on a salary rather
than an hourly paid employee and that he (Pease) would
hate to see him "get in trouble." According to Akins,
thereafter, and until the time of his dismissal, Pease
frequently questioned him as to whether he was being
careful of what he said.
Akins' testimony as to the meeting with Herrington and
Pease was credible His testimony with respect to the
comments he attributed to Herrington was undenied, for
the personnel manager gave no testimony as to this
meeting Pease denied that he mentioned the Union to
Akins or that he interrogated the employee about his
union activities His general denials, however, were
unconvincing and the Trial Examiner concludes that the
conversations with Akins occurred substantially as the
employee testified
Pease prepared a "termination of employment" form
that is dated March 1, and which lists four reasons as
grounds for the employee's dismissal These were (1) In
November 1967 he had started Akins on an assignment
which involved passing colors for the dye house and that
in January the employee indicated that he did not want to
continue this particular work; (2) Akins had worked only
three full Saturdays out of eight on which the plant had
operated since January 1, (3) On January 29, Akins had
called and said that he would have to go home because of
illness in his family, and (4) On February 15 Akins had
asked to work a double shift on the following Friday night
and this request had been rejected
At the hearing, Pease listed some of the foregoing as
reasons for the employee's termination, but he added
others Thus, in his oral testimony, Pease stated that
Akins was terminated for (1) absenteeism, (2) not
carrying out his job properly, (3) not turning in his
reports, (4) the complaints of supervisors that he was not
getting production figures to them on time; and (5)
sleeping on the job When questioned as to why all of the
foregoing did not appear on the termination form, Pease's
only explanation was that there was insufficient room on
the paper to include all the reasons
Pease conceded that the only written reprimand he ever
prepared on Akins was the termination sheet described
above. He testified that on numerous occasions from
December to March he had verbally reprimanded Akins
for tardiness and sleeping on the job, but he conceded that
none of these alleged verbal reprimands was ever reduced
to writing for Akins' personnel file He also conceded that
one of the items that appeared on the termination form,
namely the incident about passing colors, was unrelated to
the decision to discharge the employee.
Akins testified that he never stayed off work without
having called in or without having secured permission to
do so in advance The Respondent offered various time
records on the amount of hours which Akins worked
during the period in question, presumptively, to bolster
Pease's testimony as to Akins' alleged absenteeism. Pease
conceded that Akins did call in at times, and he admitted
that, in any event, at no time was Akins' salary reduced
because of unexcused absences during any of the weeks
from December to March. Yet Pease himself had to
approve all salary payments made to Akins From the
record, it is obvious that the supervisor never saw fit to
withhold any salary from the employee during the period
in question Under these circumstances, Pease's testimony
that Akins' absenteeism and failure to work on Saturday
constituted a problem was most unconvincing
Bill Hart, supervisor of the yarn room, and Bob Stepto,
assistant supervisor, testified that when Akins was in the
yarn room he was lax about getting production reports
out to them, that he had been absent at times, and that
they had found him asleep on several occasions.
According to Hart, this conduct on Akins' part continued
over a period of 3 to 4 months Hart conceded that
notwithstanding this catalog of the employee's deficiencies
he had never given Akins a reprimand or warning, or
disciplined him Moreover, Stepto likewise conceded that
no reprimands were prepared on Akins, notwithstanding a
requirement in the Respondent's supervisory manual that
verbal reprimands be reduced to writing for the
employee's personnel file
The Respondent was, indeed, free to discharge Akins
for such reasons as inefficiency, absenteeism, or sleeping
on the job. The testimony as to his efficiency, however,
was hazy and largely unspecified. The charges as to
absenteeism were substantially refuted by the fact that
throughout the period in question, Supervisor Pease
regularly authorized the full payment to Akins of his
weekly salary It is too clear for argument that no
employer should be compelled to tolerate an employee's
sleeping on the job Although at the hearing the
Respondent offered testimony that this was one of the
grounds for Akins' dismissal, at the time Pease prepared
the termination form, sleeping on the job was not even
listed as a reason for the employee's discharge In the
light of this fact, it is the Trial Examiner's conclusion that
this last alleged dereliction on Akins' part was an
afterthought and played no part in Akins' termination.
When the Union first arrived on the scene, Supervisor
Pease told Akins that as a salaried employee he should
not be affected or involved in the union campaign and,
further that he should report to management whenever he
observed a group of employees talking about the Union.
Notwithstanding this advice from his supervisor, on
February 15, Akins attended a union meeting, signed an
authorization card and joined the organizing committee.
All of these developments came to the Respondent's
attention during the course of the interrogation to which
Pease subjected the employee on the following day.
Thereafter Pease cautioned Akins that he was hearing
"bad things" about him, that Akins was "talking too
much" and that he would hate to see Akins "get into
trouble " In view of this background, it is the conclusion
of the Trial Examiner that the real motivation for Akins'
dismissal was his union activities and not the shifting
reasons assigned in his termination form and in the
testimony of Pease, Hart and Stepto. The discharge of
Akins was, therefore, discriminatory and a violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 Truman Delano Cribbs
Cribbs was hired in January 1967 to work in the card
room at Sl 40 an hour Thereafter, he was promoted to
fixer, notwithstanding the fact that several in the card
room had more seniority than he At the time of his
discharge on March 26, he was earning $2 35 an hour
Plant Superintendent Paul Aikens described the position
of fixer as a high classification among the employees and
conceded that Cribbs was well qualified and a good
worker
Cribbs signed a union card early in February He joined
the organizing committee as soon as it was formed and
thereafter actively participated in the union campaign He
testified, credibly and without contradiction, that twice in
mid-February, he was questioned about his views on the
Union by Bill Hart who was then his supervisor The
second of these occasions occurred shortly after Bachman
spoke to the assembled employees about the Union Hart
called Cribbs into his office to question him on this
subject Cribbs told him that he was in favor of the Union
and that he thought it would be helpful to the employees
His supervisor disagreed. On about March 1, when Bob
Stepto replaced Hart as supervisor of the card room on
the third shift, Cribbs and two of his coworkers went to
Stepto and told him that they had signed union cards
Cribbs also told the new supervisor that he was a member
of the employees organizing committee.'"
At the end of his shift on March 26, Cribbs was told
that Plant Superintendent Aikens and Supervisor Stepto
wanted to see him When Cribbs reported to the plant
office, Aikens told him that the management had reports
that Cribbs had been threatening employees because they
would not sign a union card, that this had occurred on the
job and that something would have to be done about it.
Cribbs denied that he had ever threatened anyone and
asked for the names of those whom he had allegedly
threatened The supervisors, however, refused to reveal the
name of any complainant. Cribbs conceded that he had
talked with his fellow employees about the Union on
breaktime He also conceded that on one occasion he had
tried to induce an employee named Bobby Howard to join
the Union and, in jest, had signed Howard's name to an
authorization card, but when Howard objected he had
torn up the card in Howard's presence Aikens informed
Cribbs that he could not discuss the Union even on break
time and that because of the report that Cribbs had been
threatening employees, he would have to be discharged
immediately "
At the hearing Aikens testified that the employee whom
Cribbs allegedly threatened was Monroe Ellis, a coworker
with Cribbs in the card room Aikens testified that Ellis
had reported this threat to Leadman Woody Royal, who,
in turn, reported it to Supervisor Stepto who, in turn,
reported it to Atkens Aikens conceded that he made no
investigation of the charge attributed to Ellis. Instead, he
promptly fired Cribbs
Royal testified that at the end of the shift on March 25,
Ellis reported to him that Cribbs had told him that unless
he signed an authorization card he would be fired if the
Union came in to the plant According to Royal, he
promptly referred the matter to Stepto The latter testified
"The foregoing findings are based on the credible , undenied testimony of
Cribbs Both Hart and Stepto testified at the hearing , but neither of them
gave any testimony in conflict with Cnbbs on the foregoing chronology
The foregoing findings are based on the credible , undemed testimony of
Cribbs
that he and Aikens thereupon called in Cribbs According
to Stepto, he was convinced that when Cribbs mentioned
the incident with Howard, about which Cribbs testified
fully at the hearing, he was convinced that Cribbs "had
been threatening employees in the card department,
interfering with their jobs and so forth." Stepto testified
that at this point, he and Aikens decided that Cribbs
should be dismissed immediately Stepto admitted,
however, that during the confrontation with Cribbs, Ellis'
name was never mentioned He also conceded that prior
to discharging Cribbs he never spoke with Ellis about the
alleged threats
Ellis was produced at the hearing as a witness for the
Respondent He was a totally incredible witness
According to Ellis, Cribbs told him that "if I didn't sign
one of them cards I'd lose my job and there'd be
trouble " At first he testified that Cribbs had come to him
in this fashion "a couple of times " Later he testified that
this had happened three or four times According to Ellis,
he told Cribbs "I did not believe in Union, I didn't know
nothing about it and I was not signing something I didn't
know nothing about " Ellis testified that he thereupon
reported the matter to Leadman Royal and the latter
promised that he would talk with Cribbs On
cross-examination, Ellis at first denied that he had ever
signed a union card Later he testified that he was unsure
as to whether he had ever done so Still later he conceded
that after Cribbs had talked to him, but before the
election he had, indeed, signed a card Much later in the
hearing Estes Riffe and Wayne Connor credibly testified
that Monroe Ellis had signed an authorization card for
them when they had called on him at his home They
further testified, credibly and without contradiction, that
Truman Cribbs was not with them at the time and that no
threats of any kind were made to the employee. This card,
which was received in evidence, is dated March 6,
approximately three weeks before Ellis reported to Royal
that Cribbs was allegedly threatening him to secure his
signature on an authorization card
Cribbs was an employee with an excellent work record,
as the plant superintendent frankly admitted After the
union drive began, his support of the campaign was open
and well known It strains credulity to accept the
Respondent's explanation for his discharge There is, of
course, no requirement in the Act that an employer
accord an employee all the elements of due process before
a dismissal for cause On the other hand, to discharge
peremptorily an experienced, highly paid employee on the
basis of allegations made by an unnamed accuser is not
normal 1I In the present instance, it is the conclusion of
the Trial Examiner that in view of the findings set forth
above, the termination of Cribbs was motivated by a
desire on the part of the Respondent to rid the plant of an
active union adherent, rather than for the reason which it
offered as an explanation By his discharge the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Cf NLRB v. Burnup and Sims, Inc , 379 U S 21,
22-23
"Cf. E Anthony & Sonsv NLR B . 163 F 2d 22, 26(CADC ),cert
denied 332 U S 773, where the Court there said, in sustaining the Board's
finding of a discriminatory termination " these employees had been
long-time, responsible and faithful employees All were discharged
summarily , without preliminary warnings, admonition or opportunity to
change the act or practice complained of Such action on the part of an
employer is not natural " See also United Stater Rubber Company v
N L R B . 384 F 2d 660, 662 (C A 5), where the court stated "Perhaps
most damning is the fact'that both Brewster and Morales were summarily
discharged after reports of their misconduct without being given an
J P. STEVENS & CO. 265
4 Mary Frances Bradley
Mrs Bradley was never employed by the Respondent
It is the contention of the General Counsel that as an
applicant for employment she would have been hired by
the Company but for her identification with certain of the
leaders in the organizational campaign This allegation is
denied in its entirety by the Respondent
Bradley testified that prior to 1968 she applied for
employment at the Statesboro mill on several occasions.
According to Bradley, in doing so she filed an application
which required, along with the information customarily
requested on such a form, that she name all relatives then
working at the plant Bradley included in this listing the
names of Truman Delano Cribbs, her brother, and
Charles Waters, a brother-in-law
in December 1967, Bradley had an interview with
Personnel Manager Herrington at which the latter told
her that it would be impossible to employ her until she
lost some weight Herrington testified that she weighed
approximately 240 pounds at the time.
On April 30, Bradley returned to Herrington's office to
renew her request for employment She testified that at
this point she had lost approximately 80 pounds and that
she told Herrington she was back because she desparately
needed a job and she had heard that the Company was
hiring employees on the midnight shift According to
Bradley, after Herrington told her that only one new
employee had been hired recently, he then questioned her
as to whether she was, in fact, related to Truman Cribbs
and Charles Waters
Bradley testified that shortly after this conversation
with Herrington she went to the office of William Bowen,
Mayor of the City of Statesboro According to Bradley,
she felt that an appeal for his assistance might help her
prospects, because the mayor had aided others in getting
employment with the Respondent, including Waters, her
brother-in-law Bradley testified that the mayor asked her
how she felt about the Union and that after she expressed
her opposition to it, he told her that he was not for it,
either, that "We don't need it and if it comes to town the
plant will close, and I know what I am talking about."
According to Mrs Bradley, he thereupon volunteered to
contact Herrington on her behalf She testified that he
then interrupted their conversation and while she remained
at his desk he placed a telephone call to Herrington
According to Bradley, Mayor Bowen told the personnel
manager that she needed a job and that he would
appreciate it if Herrington would help her get
employment Bradley testified that, after concluding this
telephone call to the plant, Mayor Bowen turned to her
and said "Mary Frances you know you have some
people out there that are red hot for the Union " She
conceded that this was true of both her brother, Truman
Cribbs, and her brother-in-law, Charles Waters
According to Bradley, after she had made this
acknowledgement, the mayor told her "We don't want it
We don't need the Union, and I know what I am
talking about It would cause them to move or to close
down " In concluding the conversation, Mayor Bowen
promised that he would talk to Herrington again later
that week "
Bradley testified that on May 6, she returned to the
plant and talked with Herrington once more According to
her, the latter declared that no job was available either
then or in the foreseeable future and that there was "no
need in wasting [her] time" with further inquiries Bradley
was never employed
During the latter part of April and early in May the
Respondent was hiring employees and it was undenied
that several women were hired during that period
Herrington testified that when Bradley came to see him in
December 1967, she had weighed about 240 pounds and
that he told her then that he could not hire her because
she was overweight Herrington acknowledged that when
she returned in April she had lost some weight, but he
gave various reasons for not employing her at that time
According to the personnel manager, the Company hired
women as spinners, winders and twisters Herrington
testified that, in his opinion, Bradley was not agile enough
to be a spinner, she was too tall to be a winder and she
was too heavy to be a twister He conceded that if she lost
more weight she might have been satisfactory as a twister,
but that in April the Company was not hiring twisters.
According to Herrington, "she was too heavy and too tall,
she just wasn't suitable for the departments in which I had
vacancies."
During the month that elapsed from April 30 to May
31 the Respondent hired 23 new employees, of which
number 9 were women 1° Of these, Fannie Bryant, was
hired on April 30, the day that Herrington told Bradley
there was nothing available for her Another, Lessie
Overstreet, was hired on May 2 A third, Vicki Bragg,
was hired on May 6, the day that Herrington told Bradley
that she was wasting her time making further inquiries
One of the women hired during this period was Kay
Bonette, who was hired on May 30 as a winder.
Herrington had testified that agility was one of the
qualities which he sought in an applicant for such a
position Bonette's employment application disclosed that
she was 5 feet 2 inches tall and weighed 170 pounds
When questioned as to how he satisfied this requirement
in an applicant with such height and weight proportions as
that of Mrs Bonette, Herrington testified that he "judged
her . muscle tone" and concluded that she was a
satisfactory prospect for a winder's position
At the time Bradley originally applied for a job, both
Cribbs and Waters were employed in the plant, and she
listed them on her application as relatives After the
Union began its campaign, both of them became active on
its behalf As found above, on March 26, the Respondent
discriminatorily discharged Cribbs for his part in the
organizational drive On April 23, and immediately after
losing the election, the Union filed the charge in Case
10-CA-7323 wherein it alleged, inter alia, that Cribbs had
been discriminatorily terminated Thereafter on April 30,
when Bradley had an interview with Personnel Manager
Herrington he questioned her as to her relationship with
both Cribbs and Waters When Herrington gave her little
encouragement that she would ever be hired, she went to
Mayor Bowen and sought his aid After expressing his
own opposition to the Union and after being assured by
her that she also was opposed to the Union, he telephoned
Herrington Immediately upon concluding the telephone
conversation with the personnel manager, he told her that
he had just learned that she had some relatives at the
plant "that are red hot for the union ." and then closed
the discussion with a reiteration of his own opinion that
opportunity to explain or give their versions of the incidents "
"Herrington never denied having had such a conversation with Mayor
Bowen
"These were Fannie Bryant, Lessie Overstreet, Vicki Bragg, Zella
Sprague, Margie Deal, Kay Bonette , Rosie Ellis , Shelby Hill, and Brenda
Braxley
266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the arrival of the Union might cause the mill "to move or
to close down "
In the light of the foregoing and the fact that during
this period the Respondent hired a number of women for
openings at the plant, the Trial Examiner concludes and
finds that, on the evidence in this record, the Respondent
denied employment to Bradley, on and after April 30,
1968, not because she was overweight, too tall, or lacking
in agility for the openings available, but because of her
close relation to Cribbs whom it had discriminatorily
terminated only a short while before, and because of its
manifest hostility to the Union By its refusal to hire
Bradley for this reason, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) Phelps Dodge Corp v N L R B, 313 U S 177,
187, N L R B v American Compress Warehouse, 321
F 2d 547, 549-550 (C A 5), cert denied 375 U S 968,
N L R B v East Texas Steel Castings, 211 F 2d 813,
8 18-8 19 (C A 5).
The Representation Proceeding
On February 21, 1968, the Union filed a representation
petition seeking an election for the employees in a
production and maintenance unit at the Statesboro plant
On March 26, after a hearing on this petition,15 the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region issued a Decision
and Direction of Election in J P Stevens & Co , Inc ,
Case 10-RC-7342. Pursuant to this decision, an election
was held at the plant on April 22 to 23 At that time, in a
unit of approximately 330 eligible voters, 110 cast ballots
for the Union and 198 cast ballots against it 16 Thereafter,
the Union filed timely objections to the election On May
2, the Regional Director issued a Supplemental Decision
wherein he found that the Employer had failed to submit
the requisite eligibility list prior to the election The
Regional Director thereupon ordered that the aforesaid
election be set aside and that a second election be
conducted among the employees in the unit here involved
Case lO-CA-7450
Upon a charge duly filed and served," the General
Counsel, by the Regional Director for Region 10, issued a
complaint dated October 4, 1968, wherein it was alleged
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent denied all
allegations that it had committed any of the alleged unfair
labor practices
A motion by the General Counsel to consolidate Case
7450 with Cases 7261, 7323, and 7364, was granted by the
Trial Examiner in an order dated October 22, 1968 As
noted earlier, the trial of the issues with which the
complaint in Case 7450 was concerned, began on
December 10, 1968, and was concluded on February 7,
1969, after an extended recess necessitated by the illness
of counsel
The Evidence as to the Alleged Violations of Section
8(a)(5), Findings and Conclusions with Respect
thereto
I The appropriate unit
In his decision in Case 10-RC-7342, the Regional
"The hearing was held on March 18
"There were 2 void and 14 challenged ballots
I'The charge was filed on August 15, 1968
Director found that all production and maintenance
employees at the Respondent's Statesboro, Georgia, plant,
including shipping clerk, shipper-receiver, stockroom
employees, dyehouse employees, quality control
department employees, production control department
employees, and specifically including sample clerks and
clerk-typists or clerks in said departments, leadmen, and
fixer-leadmen, but excluding office clericals, industrial
engineering department employees, personnel office
employees, professionals, watchmen-boilermen, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute an
appropriate unit.
At the trial in the complaint proceeding, the
Respondent offered no evidence that would tend to prove
any change of circumstances or any other intervening fact
which would necessitate a modification in the unit
determination of the Regional Director Accordingly, the
Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the unit described
above was, at all times material herein, appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act
2. The demand for recognition and issues as to
whether the Union had a majority
By letter dated February 17, 1968, the Union, wrote to
Plant Manager Edwin Bachman that the Textile Workers
had been designated as the bargaining agent by a majority
of the employees in a unit made up of the production and
maintenance employees at the Statesboro plant, excluding
office clericals, professionals, guards and supervisors "'
The letter contained a demand that the Union be
recognized as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the aforesaid unit It further stated that if the Company
had a good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority
We hereby offer to submit the authorization cards
signed by your employees to a representative of the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service or to any
other disinterested third party mutually agreed upon, in
order that our majority status in the bargaining unit
may be verified, by having the signatures of the
authorization cards checked with your payroll records
by such third party
In a letter, dated February 20, Plant Manager
Bachman acknowledged receipt of the Union's demand for
recognition and stated that circumstances that had come
to the Company's attention indicated that a majority of
the employees did not desire union representation. The
letter also rejected the Union's proposal that a third party
card check be utilized to resolve the majority question
Bachman concluded his response with the statement that
he assumed the Union would refer the matter to the
National Labor Relations Board for its disposition
The General Counsel contends that this initial request
for recognition was a continuing demand and that it was
subsequently restated on several occasions prior to the
election in April The record supports this contention
At the representation hearing held on March 18, Albert
Horn, the union representative at that proceeding, stated
to Respondent's counsel that the Union had a substantial
majority among the employees in the unit and that its
demand for recognition, made previously, was a
continuing demand.
"This was substantially the same unit grouping which the Regional
Director subsequently found appropriate in the decision described above
J. P. STEVENS & CO.
McIver testified, credibly and without contradiction,
that on April 20, in a preelection conference, he met with
Personnel Manager Herrington and Plant Superintendent
Aikens to discuss the eligibility list for the voting
According to McIver, he proposed to Herrington and
Aikens that, since an overwhelming majority of the
employees had signed authorization cards, all the
problems connected with an election could be avoided if
the Company would recognize the Union. McIver testified
that the plant officials ignored his proposal
McIver further testified that on the morning of April
22, and just before the balloting began, the Board agent
conducting the election asked him and the company
representative present whether they had anything to
consider before opening the polls. According to McIver,
whereas he again requested that the Company recognize
the Union at that time, the management officials present
made no response.
On the basis of the foregoing facts, the Trial Examiner
concludes and finds that the Union's demand for
recognition and bargaining, first made in its letter of
February 17, 1968, was a continuing demand and that it
was renewed thereafter, as described above, on March 18,
and April 20 and 22. Further, this demand was rejected by
the Respondent in its letter of February 20 and at all
times subsequent thereto
The parties stipulated as to the admission of four
different lists which set forth the names and classifications
all employees in the appropriate unit as of February 17,
March 18, and April 20 and 22. According to these
exhibits, on February 17, there were 347 employees in the
unit, on March 18, there were 341 On April 20 and 22
there were 323 To the question as to whether the Union
did, in fact, have a majority in the unit on any, or all, of
these dates, we will now turn.
a The dive to secure authorization cards
The Union distributed two types of cards during the
course of its campaign at the Statesboro plant. The first
of these read as follows
Type A
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA
Affiliate of the AFL-CIO and CLC
(Date) 196-
I hereby join with my fellow workers at the
mill in organizing a union in order to better our
conditions of life and secure economic justice, as is my
right under the laws of the United States To this end I
declare that the Textile Workers Union of America,
AFL-CIO and CLC, shall be my representative in
collective bargaining over wages , hours and all other
267
conditions of employment . I make this pledge of my
own free will in the conviction that the united action of
all workers through unions of their own choosing is the
way to achieve the liberty of the individual for the
benefit of all
MILL
DEPARTM ENT
NAME-
SHIFT
(Do not print)
ST. AND NO
CITY PHONE-
The second card used by the Union read as follows
Type B
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA
Affiliate of the AFL-CIO and CLC
(Date) 196-
I hereby accept membership in the Textile Workers
Union of America of my own free will and do hereby
designate said Textile Workers Union of America as
my representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of
employment or other conditions of employment,
MILL
DEPARTMENT. SHIFT
NAMF
(Do not print)
ST. AND NO
CITY
HOME PHONE NO.
The foregoing are worded unambiguously and on their
face clearly set forth a purpose to designate the Union as
the signatory's collective-bargaining agent As such, they
do not have any of the limitations or disabilities which the
Board and the Courts have attributed to so-called dual
purpose cards The type of authorization here involved,
therefore, is the kind of which the Board stated in Levi
Strauss & Co . 172 NLRB No. 57.
An employee who signs such a card may perhaps not
understand all the legal ramifications that may follow
his signing, but if he can read he is at least aware that
by his act of signing he is effectuating the authorization
the card declares
The union solicitation for employee signatures on the
authorization cards began the latter part of January At
the behest of Harold McIver, on January 24, two
organizers under his direction , Estes Riffe and Robert
Best, went to Statesboro, where they began distributing
268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union leaflets to all employees entering and leaving the
plant. Riffe and Best left Statesboro immediately after
passing out the leaflets to employees on all three shifts
The leaflets in question consisted of a folded sheet on
which an organizational appeal and a statement as to the
advantages of a union were directed to the Stevens'
employees An imprinted authorization card appeared on
one corner of the sheet The latter was of the first type
reproduced above The leaflet urged the Stevens'
employees to fill out this card and mail it back to the
Union in an envelope that was attached to the leaflet
McIver testified that as a result of this pamphleteering,
the Union received approximately 70 of these cards in the
mail.
On February 8, McIver, Best and Riffe arrived at the
access road to the Statesboro plant and renewed their
leaflet campaign. This time they distributed another
pamphlet which also had an authorization card attached,
along with a stamped, self-addressed envelope. McIver
testified that approximately 30 more signed cards were
received as a result of this distribution
All three organizers testified that in handing out their
leaflets on January 24 and February 8 they had little, or
no, time, to engage in any discussion with the employees
as the latter drove by in their cards while entering or
leaving the plant The union representatives testified
credibly that, in substance, all that was said to the
employees was that if they wanted a union, they should
sign the card on the leaflet, or attached to it, and mail it
back to the Union All three testified, credibly, that they
did not mention an election to any of the employees
Shortly after the second distribution of leaflets, McIver
mailed a letter to all who had signed cards wherein he
announced that the Union would hold an organizational
meeting on February 12, at the Cooperville Community
Center
On February 12, McIver held two separate meetings in
order to accommodate all the employees on the three
different shifts In each instance, McIver talked at length
on the steps the Union proposed to follow in organizing
the employees Initially, he pointed out the necessity of as
many employees as possible signing the authorization
cards. He told the employees that when a majority of
them had signed cards, the Union would write the
Company, advising it that on the basis of the cards it
represented a majority and wished to bargain, on their
behalf Mclver told the employees that the Union would
suggest to the Company that if it doubted the Union's
majority, a disinterested third party, such as a minister or
a representative of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service, could examine the cards and ascertain their
authenticity. McIver told the employees that whereas
many employers would recognize a union upon proof of a
card majority, in the light of his experience with Stevens,
he did not anticipate that their employer would accord
such recognition. McIver told those present that if the
Company rejected the Union's demand for recognition,
the Union would petition the Labor Board for an election.
In his talk to the employees he emphasized that by signing
the cards the employees were giving the Union authority
to represent them and that they were proving their support
for the Union He further stressed that the union
representatives had not come to secure an election but to
organize the employees and secure bargaining rights on
their behalf at the Statesboro plant McIver likewise
solicited the help of those present in securing more signed
authorization cards from their coworkers. He also
distributed copies of an organizing committee sheet and
read to them the four lines which appeared at the top 19
During the course of the campaign, approximately 153
employees signed these sheets
On February 15, McIver held two further meetings in
Cooperville with the employees on the different shifts He
testified that a total of approximately 120 attended At
the meetings on this date, McIver again reviewed the
procedure which the Union proposed to follow in securing
recognition as their bargaining agent That same day, as
found earlier herein, Plant Manager Bachman delivered a
speech about the Union to all of the employees in which
he told them that there would come a time when their
authorization cards would be laid on the table for him to
see Several employees questioned McIver as to this threat
to the confidentiality of their cards In response to such
questions, McIver told those present that the only
occasion when authorization cards would be disclosed
would be in a situation where a majority of the employees
had signed cards and thereafter the employer illegally
destroyed this majority by unlawful interference, restraint,
and coercion At this time, McIver again stressed the
significance of the employees' signing cards, and the fact
that this action demonstrated the support of the individual
for the Union.
Mclver credibly testified that at no time during these
meetings did he, Riffe or Best tell the assembled
employees that the authorization cards would be used only
to secure an election."
A number of union meetings were held subsequent to
February 15 and many union leaflets were distributed to
the employees. One of these was passed out to the
employees shortly after February 21 when the Union
petitioned for a Board-conducted election. This reviewed
the fact that the Union had requested that the Company
recognize it on the basis of a card majority It also
reiterated the proposal that the Company could designate
a disinterested third party to determine the Union's
majority claim by checking the authenticity of signatures
on the cards. The pamphlet concluded with an outline of
representation procedures whereby the Company could
agree to a consent election or wait for the Board to direct
an election
"The heading at the top of this document read as follows
I hereby authorize the Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, to
use my name for the purpose of organizing Gulistan Plant - J P
Stevens & Co , Inc This will include sending my name to the National
Labor Relations Board as a Voluntary Organizer Also to be used in the
signing of Union leaflets
"This finding is based upon some of the most controverted testimony in
the record McIver testified that prior to the outset of the campaign at the
Statesboro plant, the Union had held a meeting at its headquarters in
Charlotte , North Carolina , and there reviewed the practices that would
have to be followed in soliciting cards According to McIver , at this time
he and his associates were apprised of the problems connected with
solicitation of cards for dual purposes and they were specifically instructed
to advise the employees that the primary purpose for signing a card was to
organize the Union and not to obtain an election McIver, Riffe, and Best
were mature , experienced , union leaders who had spent many years in
organizational activities Their testimony on this issue was credible and it
successfully withstood an extended and searching cross-examination
Moreover, their testimony as to what was said at the meetings on February
12 and 15 was corroborated by that of many employees who were present
Eg Floyd Miller, Jack Bowen, Robert A Lee, Johnnie Hall , Addie 0
Jackson, Gerald Graham, Roosevelt Love, John W Mills, Charlie C
Sheffield, Connie B Dixon, Johnnie Hall, and many others Whereas some
of those present testified that at these meetings McIver and his associates
told the employees that the cards would be used only to obtain an election
(e g , Don Hughes , William H Simmons , and various others ) the Trial
Examiner concludes and finds that this latter testimony was totally and
completely incredible
J. P. STEVENS & CO.
Shortly before the election on April 22 and 23, McIver
sent a letter to all who had signed cards wherein he told
the employees involved, inter alia, that any who wished to
withdraw his membership or have his name removed from
the organizing committee could do so at a meeting
scheduled for April 20. In a subsequent leaflet, distributed
on the eve of the election to all employees at the plant,
the Union claimed that no employee had withdrawn from
the Union and that, at that time, 80 percent of the
employees in the plant had signed membership cards This
same leaflet also contained the names of 147 employees
who had enlisted as members of the voluntary organizing
committee.
b Cards signed on or before February 17
(1) Cards as to which there was no dispute
The cards of the following named employees were
signed on or before February 17, the signatories testified
to having signed the cards, or a witness to the signature
testified, and there was no testimony or evidence, that the
employee was told that the card would be used solely for
the purpose of getting an election.
Gary Akins
Robert L Andrews
Shelton Bacon
Jack F. Bazemore
Marion Beard
Earl Gene Berry
Larry Berry
Laurie Blitch
Wendell Bragg
Gertrude Brown
Helen Brown
Charles H. Conner
Wayne Connor 2i
Jesse Covington
Myrtle Marie Cribbs
Truman Delano Cribbs 22
Thelma Driggers
Gladys Dyches
William English 2l
Charles A Gay
Sam Graham
Freddie Joe Grant
Randall Groover
Betty J. Gross
Patsy Hagan
Dell L. Hendley, Jr.
Donnie Hendley
Bernard Hendrix
Calvin C. Hendrix
John F Hill
L. D. Hill
James F Hodges
William C Hodges
Agnes Hollingsworth"
David Hood
Enoch Howard
Jerry Jones
James Larry Kingery
Jimmy Kingery
Naomi F Lanier
Eria La Cue
Ebenezer Lee
Robert A Lee
Mattie Mae Lewis
Jimmy F. Lesley
Jeannette Littleton25
Reba Lott
Burdessie Love
Grady Love
Roosevelt Love
Fred C. Lovett
Jake Lundy
James McCall
Alfred McCollum
Ted W McCorkle
Harold D. McCray
Annette McLaughlin
B F McMillan
William H. McMillan
Thelmon B. McPhatter
Jeroline Miles
Andrew C Miller,
James D. Miller
Roger D Miller
John W. Mills
Betty Mincey
Ernest T. Mock
Stevie Motes
Charles Nessmith
Isaac Parrish
Christine Prince
Jr.
Bernie Lee Robinson
Aubrey Scott
William E. Sheley
Joyce Skinner
Lee Swenson Smith
Elwood M. Thompson
Margene Thompson
Charles A. Waters
J. T. Wells
John D. West
Doy Woods
"Although Connor was discharged on February 16, this termination, as
found above , was discriminatory Consequently, Connor remained an
(2) Other cards signed prior to February 17
269
The cards of the following named employees should be
counted for the reasons set forth below.
Fred Bazemore testified as a witness for the Intervenor.
According to Bazemore, he signed his card at the union
meeting of February 15 and at that meeting McIver said
that the card "was for to get election . get so many of
'em that they was gonna put a petition in Atlanta." On
the other hand, on cross-examination, Bazemore conceded
that he may have misunderstood and that McIver may
have said that after the Union secured a majority and the
Company refused to recognize it, he (McIver) would go to
Atlanta and file a petition for an election
Jessie Robert Bazemore testified that he received his
card from one of the union organizers in January, that he
brought it home and that his wife read it to him.
Bazemore testified that at his request his wife thereupon
signed the card and mailed it to the Union The card was
dated January 29. On cross-examination, Bazemore
testified that at the time he had his card signed, either
Wayne Connor or Truman Cribbs had handed him a
leaflet and told him that the Union wanted the cards
signed to get an election This last testimony was not
credible. Connor credibly testified that he did not become
active in distributing leaflets until after his discharge on
February 16 Cribbs credibly testified that he did not
engaged in any solicitation on behalf of the Union until
after he signed a card on February 5.
Charlie Beasley signed his card at the meeting of
February 15. He testified that either McIver or Riffe
handed the card to him and told him "We're trying to
organize a union." According to Beasley, he heard no
mention of an election until considerably after this
meeting
Joe E Beasley signed a card that is dated January 24
He testified that he received it from one of the organizers
who was passing out leaflets that day and that all that was
said to him by the organizer was "Let's mail these things
back in and get the campaign going."
George Bland signed a card at the first union meeting
on February 12. He conceded that he signed the card, but
testified that he did not read it. He further testified that,
during the meeting, McIver told those present that "if
they could get enough people--about fifty-one or two
percent to sign cards, they'd hold election." Apart from
the fact that McIver's testimony as to what occurred at
this meeting has already been found to reflect accurately
what was said , Bland 's testimony was not credible. While
on the stand he displayed an air of casual indifference that
bordered on the contemptuous His card should be
counted
Jack Bowen received his card from McIver at the union
meeting on February 15 and signed it there Bowen
testified that, in his speech to the employees, McIver
emphasize that by signing authorization cards they were
giving their full support to the Union According to
Bowen, McIver told them there could be no partial
employee within the meaning of the Act and his card must be counted
"Since Cribbs' discharge on March 1 was discriminatory , as found
earlier herein , Cribbs, like Connor , remained an employee for all purposes
"Estes Riffe credibly testified that he saw English sign a card at the
union meeting on February 15 This testimony was uncontradicted and
undenied
"At the time of the hearing this employee had married and testified as
Agnes Hollingsworth Miller
"At the time of the hearing this employee had remarried and appeared
as Jeannette Littleton Wise
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supporters of the Union any more than a woman could be
just a little bit pregnant
Ronald D Bowen received a card from the union
organizers on January 24, the first day they appeared at
the plant. Bowen filled in the card, signed it and mailed it
back to the Union. Thereafter he attended several union
meetings, signed up as a member of the voluntary
organizing committee and acted as one of the union
observers at the election After the Union lost the election
and after the hearing began in Case 7261, et al , he was
subpoenaed as a witness for the General Counsel, but
failed to respond until directed to do so by a court order
enforcing the subpoena. Later, at the hearing in Case
7450, Bowen appeared as one of the intervenors At that
time, on cross-examination by the Respondent, Bowen
testified that the union organizers gave him to understand
that if the Union was to come into the plant it had to win
an election. On the basis of the early portion of the
chronology set forth above, the Trial Examiner concludes
and finds that Bowen signed the authorization card of his
own free will and that his actions for a period of several
months thereafter confirm that he intended to give the
Union his complete support. It is the further conclusion of
the Trial Examiner that the effect of the Respondent's
interference, restraint and coercion, found earlier herein,
are illustrated by Bowen's conduct subsequent to the
election and his testimony many months later as to his
"understanding" of what the union representatives meant
The Court's language in a similar case is applicable here.
we have here the classic case of employees
testifying under the eye of the company officials about
events which occurred almost a year before and prior to
the activities which were subsequently found to
constitute unfair labor practices. It is certainly
conceivable that those same threats and benefits which
shook an employee's original support for the union, also
altered that employee's memory as to events which
occurred before the presentation of such threats and
benefits By the time of the hearing the employees may
well have changed their mind with respect to union
affiliation, but the crucial question in a refusal to
bargain case is whether the Union had the support of a
majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining
unit at the time the request to bargain was made, and
not whether that support remains intact some ten
months later International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America v N L R B, 392 F.2d 801, 807-808
(C.A D.C ).
Riley Brannen testified that he attended the union
meeting on February 15, that he had Larry Kingery, a
fellow employee, fill out a card for him, that he then
signed the card and that thereafter he had his wife mail
the card to the Union.
Charles Brown signed a card at the union meeting on
February 15 He was one of the intervenors at the hearing
in Case 7450 and, in response to a question as to the
purpose for which he had signed a card, testified that he
had done so "to get an election to organize a union "
Whereas this last statement in itself is ambiguous, Brown
also testified that in McIver's speech, he told the
employees that a union could be recognized on the basis
of a card majority and that some employers did so There
was no dispute as to whether Brown could read, nor any
claim that he had not read the card. Earlier herein it was
found that the cards were direct and unambiguous in
setting forth that by the act of signing an employee
designated the Union as his bargaining agent. The Trial
Examiner concludes and finds that Brown's card must be
counted.26
Roy E Chester was a supervisor and a very reluctant
witness when called by the General Counsel early in the
hearing He conceded that he signed an authorization card
and that he was a rank-and-file employee until promoted
to supervisor in July 1968 Chester's card was dated
February 12. Wayne Connor credibly testified that
Chester signed the card when Connor visited him at this
home.
Clyde Cone, Jr , signed a card that is dated February 7.
He testified that he received it from one of the union
organizers when pamphlets were being handed out on the
highway. Cone denied that he ever read the card On the
other hand, he testified that the organizer who handed it
to him told him that it was a union card, and that
thereafter he personally filled out the entire card and
mailed it back to the Union. Cone also conceded that at a
union meeting which he subsequently attended, an
organizer explained the significance of the authorization
card and that he never thereafter sought to withdraw his
card He likewise conceded that at the same meeting he
signed the organizing committee sheet. Cone's testimony
that, notwithstanding having filled out the entire card, he
never read it, was unconvincing. Even accepting his
statement in this regard, it is apparent from the rest of his
testimony that when he admittedly learned the purport of
the card his subsequent course of conduct constituted a
ratification of his signing of the authorization.
Gordon Cone, Sr , appeared and testified that on about
February 9 he filled out and signed the authorization card
attributed to him. The Respondent endeavored to attack
the authenticity of Cone's signature by offering various
personnel records which were signed by a "Gordon E.
Cone." The signatures on these`records do, indeed, differ
substantially from that which appears on the authorization
card. On the other hand Cone was examined as to his
signature on the card on both direct and cross and
throughout the examination credibly maintained that the
signature thereon was his and, further, that he had filled
out the entire card The Trial Examiner concludes and
finds that Cone's card should be counted.
Remer Cone testified that he could not read, but that
he realized the card which had been handed to him by an
organizer was a union card. According to Cone, he took
the card home, and asked his wife to fill it out and sign it
for him Cone testified that his wife did so, and that she
later mailed it to the Union In the absence of any
misrepresentation by union agents, Cone's card must be
counted.
Jessie B Crosby was one of the intervenors in Case
7450. She acknowledged that she signed her card on about
February 7, and that she read it before filling it out and
signing it . She further testified, however, "I didn't
understand I was joining a Union 'cause I thought before
you joined something it had to be there already " On the
other hand, Mrs. Crosby did not testify to any
misrepresentation by the union organizers that would have
caused her to be misled Under these circumstances, the
Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the card should
be counted as a valid designation.
Glenda Davis was a witness for the intervenor. in Case
7450. She acknowledged having filled out a card and
""Where a card on its face clearly declares a purpose to designate the
union, the card itself effectively advises the employee of that purpose, and
particularly so where , as here, the form of the card is such as to leave no
room for possible ambiguity " Levi Strauss & Co , 1712 NLRB No 57
J. P. STEVENS & CO. 271
having signed it at the union meeting on February 15.
According to Davis, McIver told them at this meeting
that the card was only for an election Earlier herein,
McIver's denial that he made such a statement was found
credible Davis also testified that she did not read the
card This statement, however, was hardly credible in view
of the fact that she conceded having filled out all the
blanks on the card before she signed it. Tending to
establish that the signing of the card was no isolated act
on her part, Davis likewise conceded that after the initial
union meeting she attended five or six more organizational
meetings and that at one of them she had Linda Bolton, a
coworker, sign the organizing committee sheet on her
behalf In view of the foregoing facts, the Trial Examiner
concludes and finds that Davis' card was a valid
designation
Henry Davis testified that he signed a card at the union
meeting on February 15 According to Davis, at this
meeting McIver told those present that "if we sign the
cards -- had to have so many, then they'd go to the
Company to recognize the Union, and then if they didn't
recognize the Union, they would file for an election at the
plant
Connie C Dixon signed a card at the union meeting on
February 15. She denied that there was any mention of an
election by the organizers who spoke at this meeting
According to her, there was never any mention of an
election until sometime later "when the election was fixin'
to be held "
Ruth A Durden acknowledged having filled out and
signed a card on February 15 According to her, James D
Miller and Wayne Connor, two fellow employees, came to
her home and Miller told her "come on and sign the card,
that they only needed a few more to get this certain
percentage so they could file for an election " Durden
testified that she thereupon signed the card "so they could
file to have an election " Miller credibly testified that he
had made no such statement to her According to Miller,
he and Connor talked with her at her home and in the
presence of her husband Miller testified that while he and
Connor were there, Durden's husband, who had once been
a union member, urged his wife to sign the card At the
hearing, Durden testified that prior to signing the card she
had attended a union meeting but that she had asked no
questions while there because "I knew what the Union
was about." On the facts surrounding the signing of this
card, it is apparent that there were no misrepresentations
by the Union, that Durden knew what she was doing when
she filled out the card and signed it and that it, therefore,
constituted a valid designation
Ralph Evans acknowledged having signed a card on
about February 16 He at first denied that he had read the
card, but he later amended this statement by admitting
that he had read part of the card but that he could not
remember precisely how much He also conceded that
after signing the card he subsequently signed the
organizing committee sheet. Evans testified that he gave
the card to Wayne Moore, a fellow employee, after the
latter told him that the card was to "get an election at the
plant " Evans was not a credible witness, but even
assuming that Moore made the statement attributed to
him, the Board has held that "The fact that employees
may be told that an election is contemplated or that the
card will make an election possible does not. vitiate
unambiguously worded authorization cards in the
absence of an expressed representation that they will be
used only for an election. McEwen Manufacturing
Company. 172 NLRB No. 99
Edward L Fanning did not testify and no one testified
as to having witnessed the signing of the name that
appears on the card The card is dated February 8 and on
its back appears the stamp of the Tenth Regional Office
indicating that it was received there at 1 05 p m on
February 21, when the Union submitted the necessary
authorization cards to establish the requisite showing of
interest at the time the representation petition was filed
Roosevelt Love testified that in his work as a fellow
employee he had seen Fanning sign his name frequently
and that, in his opinion , the signature on the authorization
card in question was that of Fanning . Several personnel
documents from the Respondent ' s files which admittedly
bore Fanning ' s signature were offered in evidence The
signatures on these documents appear to be identical with
that on the authorization card The Respondent offered no
evidence to the contrary At the hearing , the Trial
Examiner reserved ruling on the offer of this card It is
now received in evidence Further , the Trial Examiner
concludes and finds that this card, so identified , is a valid
designation and should be counted.
Frances Floyd and Jacqueline Lowery All of the
authorization cards were printed on blue paper, as were
the cards bearing the signatures of these two employees
Floyd and Lowery conceded that the handwriting and
signatures which appeared on these respective cards were
their own However, they testified that they thought that
the cards they had signed were white Floyd' s card is
dated January 25, the envelope in which it was received by
the Union is postmarked January 26 , and the
authorization card was backstamped by the Tenth Region
Office at 1 06 p m , February 21 Lowery's card is
undated, but the envelope in which it was received by the
Union is postmarked February 8, and the card bears a
backstamp of the Tenth Regional Office as 1 08 p m ,
February 21 Both cards were the type which appeared in
the Union ' s early leaflet to the employees , and both
witnesses remembered having cut them out and mailed
them back to the Union Under these circumstances, it
must be held , as the Trial Examiner now holds, that the
subjective recollection of these witnesses cannot negate
their objective act of having signed these cards on or
before February 8 They, therefore, must be counted
Jerry E Gerrald signed a card and then turned it in at
the Union meeting on February 15 He testified that
McIver told those present that a majority would have to
sign the authorization cards and that thereafter the Union
would write the Company requesting recognition
According to Gerrald , McIver told the employees , that if
that did not bring recognition , the Union would then
petition for an election Gerrald denied that McIver or
anyone else present said that if enough cards were signed
the Union would merely use them to get an election
Gerald Graham signed his card at the union meeting on
February 15 His testimony as to what was said at that
meeting corroborated the testimony of Gerrald set forth
above
Dovis L Gwinnette testified that she signed her card at
the union meeting on February 12. She testified that at
that time McIver told the employees present "get the
majority of cards signed, and if the Company would
negotiate with us, there wouldn ' t be no election, but if
they didn't they [the Union] would call an election "
Johnnie Hall signed his card at the union meeting on
February 15 According to Hall , McIver told the
employees at that time that "if he could get the
majority to sign cards that the Company may recognize
[the Union] by letting a minister come in and check [the
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cards, but if [the Company wouldn't], that they would
have to file a petition for an election "
Mae Nessmith Hendrix27 signed a card on January 26
On cross-examination by counsel for the Intervenor she
testified that she signed it to get an election On the other
hand, she had testified earlier that she read the card
before signing it and that prior to signing the card she had
talked with no union representatives. Finally, on redirect,
she testified that she signed the card before she heard any
talk in the plant about an election Her card should be
counted
Don Hughes signed a card at the union meeting on
February 12 Although he denied having read the card
before signing it, he conceded having filled out most of the
card himself On further examination as to this issue, he
conceded that he at least "glanced over it enough to fill it
out " Hughes testified that McIver told those present that
the cards would be used only "to call for an election" and
that "the election would decide whether we had a union or
not, that was the only way to get it in." On this issue,
Hughes was totally incredible Earlier herein, it was found
that McIver made no such statements as Hughes would
attribute to him. Hughes' card should be counted
Addie 0 Jackson signed her card at the union meeting
on February 15 She testified that the organizer told them
that "in signing the card, we would be signing the card to
organize the union he said that if received enough
signed cards, we could - it would have to be the majority
that he would take the cards to the Company, and if
the Company recognized the cards, then the Union could
go in on the cards, but, if not, then he would file a
petition for an election and that an election would be
held."
Eddie Jones was an intervenor and on examination by
Counsel for the Intervenors he testified that he signed a
card "to have an election " On the other hand, he testified
that he received his card from one of the organizers about
February 8, that he read the card, understood what it was,
filled it out and signed it and thereafter mailed it back to
the Union He further testified that between the time he
received the card and the time he mailed it he had no
conversation with any union organizer Jones' card should
be counted.
James Jones2e had his wife sign a card for him on
February 9 Jones testified that the union organizer who
gave him the card did not mention an election, but merely
told him at the time "fill 'em out and get 'em in "29
Sue H Jones signed a card dated February 16 At the
hearing she appeared as one of the intervenors and
testified that she did not read the card before signing it
She further testified that James D Miller, a fellow
employee, told her at the time she signed the card that
"we don't need but just a few more and we'll have enough
to file for an election." Miller, on the other hand, denied
having made this statement to Jones His denial was
credible Notwithstanding Jones' initial testimony that she
"This card is signed "Mae Nessmith " Mrs Hendrix married subsequent
to executing the authorization
"At the hearing the Respondent contended that Jones was not a member
of the unit because he was a boilerman - watchman Jones, however,
testified that he was not reclassified to the latter job until sometime in
March This testimony is corroborated by the employee lists which the
Respondent supplied On these lists for February 17 and March 18, Jones
is classified as a waste collector and as a member of the unit
"Jones testified that he subsequently signed another card that was given
him by a fellow employee and that on this latter occasion his coworker
told him that the card was only to get an election This card, however, was
never offered in evidence
had not read the card, she conceded that she had filled out
the entire card in her own handwriting, that she
subsequently attended a union meeting and that she also
signed up as a member of the organizing committee. In
view of these circumstances the Trial Examiner concludes
and finds that Jones' card should be counted
Ozell Lawrence signed a card dated February 8 He
testified that he filled out the card and mailed it to the
Union He also identified the envelope in which it was
sent. This latter bears a postmark of February 10 On
cross-examination by Counsel for the Respondent,
Lawrence testified that before he signed the card he heard
McIver say that when a majority had signed the cards
"he'll file a petition with the Labor Board for election."
Earlier, however, Lawrence testified that it was McIver
who gave him the card initially and that the union
organizer said nothing to him at that time. Later in the
hearing, Lawrence testified that McIver made the remark
in question at the second union meeting The latter was
held on February 15, and several days after Lawrence had
mailed the card to the Union Under these circumstances,
the statement attributed to McIver, even if true, would be
irrelevant Lawrence's card should be counted
Tommy Lewis signed a card dated February 12. Lewis
testified that he read it and then filled it out before
signing the card On cross-examination by Counsel for the
Respondent, Lewis testified that at the union meeting of
February 12, McIver said that the Union would have to
have enough cards to get an election. On redirect
examination, however, Lewis further testified that McIver
told those present that "if they got enough cards signed
that they'd take 'em to the Company and ask the
Company to recognize 'em and . if they didn't, then
they'd hold an election " Lewis' card should be counted
Doy Love's card is dated January 31. He testified that
the union representative who handed him the card, urged
him to sign it to help "recognize the Union." According
to Love, it was not until some time after he had signed
the card that he learned that it could also be used to help
the Union get an election
Gerald McMillan signed a card that is dated February
7. McMillan testified that he received the card from
McIver when leaving the plant with several coworkers
According to McMillan, McIver told him that if the cards
were signed, "we wouldn't be obligated to anything any
farther than having an election." McMillan's testimony in
this connection was contradicted by McIver The latter
credibly denied having made any such comment to
McMillan or anyone else in the car Mover's denial was
corroborated by the testimony of Jerry Jones, the driver
of the car in which McMillan was a passenger According
to Jones, the union organizer said nothing as he handed
leaflets and authorization cards through the car window
In any event, McMillan testified that he read the card,
that he understood it and that he filled it out completely
before signing it Under these circumstances, the Trial
Examiner concludes that the card should be counted.
Ike McNeely's card is dated January 25 McNeely
testified that he received the card from one of the union
representatives who was handing out leaflets near the
plant He testified that he read the card, filled it out
completely and then signed it, without having had any
conversation with a union representative. McNeely
testified that later he attended about three union meetings
and that at one of them he heard McIver say that a
petition would be filed for an election when he had enough
cards McNeely could not recall at which meeting it was
that he heard this remark. It was undisputed that the first
J P STEVENS & CO. 273
union meeting was held on February 12 Even if true, the
comment attributed to McIver could have no relevance as
to a card that was signed on January 25
J C Marsh and Glenda Marsh The cards of these
employees, husband and wife, are dated February 14 and
13 They received the cards from Jesse Covington, a
fellow employee Both were intervenors at the hearing
Each one testified as to not having read the card before
signing it. On the other hand, each one testified to having
filled out all the blank spaces on the card before signing
the authorization and turning it over to Covington Mrs
Marsh testified that she heard that the purpose of it was
to obtain an election, but she conceded that this was not
until after she had signed the card. Marsh testified that a
few days before signing his card he heard some of the
employees say that there would be an election if a
majority signed the cards Marsh conceded, however, that
when Covington handed him the card, he asked him to
sign and said nothing else while Marsh filled out the card
and then returned it to Covington The testimony of both
Marshes that they had not read the cards before signing
them lacked any persuasiveness in view of their admittedly
having filled out the cards in their own handwriting prior
to signing them Here, again, in line with controlling
authority, the objective act of signing the cards is
conclusive and requires that they be counted The Trial
Examiner so finds
Claudie Martin appeared at the hearing and testified
that he had his daughter fill out and sign his card It was
dated January 27 Martin testified that he received the
card from one of the organizers outside the plant and that
at that time the union representative said nothing to him
and his coworkers other than to advise them "to send
them [the cards] in to organize the Union " At the
hearing on December 11, 1968, Martin's card was received
in evidence without objection by Counsel for the
Respondent On February 7, 1969, and before the close of
the hearing, however, the Reporter stated that he was
unable to find this particular authorization card Whatever
the reason for what appears to have been the inadvertent
loss of this exhibit, the Trial Examiner concludes that
Martin's card, about which the employee testified,
credibly and without dispute, and which card was received
in evidence, should be counted J0
Floyd Miller" signed a card at the union meeting on
February 12 According to Miller, McIver told them at
this meeting " get the union cards signed you had to
have 51 percent, the majority of the cards signed ..then
they would take 'em to the company sometimes they
would recognize the cards and accept the union cards. if
they didn't, they would apply to the Labor Board for an
election .[or] they could bring in a third party to
check the cards out - a preacher or somebody else "
Hubert Miller, Jr Miller's card is dated February 8
He testified that he authorized Joel Oglesby, a fellow
employee, to fill out the card and sign it for him while
they were driving home from work one day He testified
that Oglesby never mentioned an election at the time
According to Miller, he first heard about the possibility of
an election when he subsequently attended the union
meeting on February 12, and at that time he signed a
JOtn a stipulation , received by the Trial Examiner on May 29, 1969,
counsel and representatives for all parties agreed that , in lieu of the
missing exhibit, Martin ' s testimony could be utilized in arriving at a
decision as to the authenticity of his authorization card The aforesaid
stipulation is hereby received as Joint Exhibit I
"On the Company 's records , Miller was listed as "William F Miller
second card The only card offered and received in
evidence, however , was the card which Miller had
authorized Oglesby to sign for him on February 8 This
should be counted
Wayne Moote signed a card at the union meeting on
February 15 Although Moore testified that at this
meeting McIver told them that when a majority of the
employees signed cards , the Union would petition for an
election, this type of testimony has already been found
incredible insofar as it attributed to McIver ' s speech a
statement that the sole purpose of the cards was to secure
an election Moore also testified that he never read the
card he signed and endeavored to give the impression that
he really never understood what it meant It was
undenied, however , that during the union campaign,
Moore was active in soliciting his coworkers to sign
authorizations and at one time he and James D Miller, a
fellow employee who was also an active union
campaigner, went to the office of Plant Manager
Sheppard to speak on behalf of those employees who were
supporting the Union Moore also conceded that he signed
the organizing committee sheet and that he never tried to
revoke his card In the light of these facts, the Trial
Examiner concludes and finds that on February 15, when
Moore signed the card, he fully understood that the
primary purpose of that act was to help in organizing the
Union Accordingly , Moore 's card should be counted
Joel Oglesby and Sidney Bazemore Cards for these two
employees were dated February 8 Oglesby testified that
on that date he, Bazemore and Hubert Miller, J r , were
leaving the plant in the same car when union organizers
McIver and Riffe handed them authorization cards and
leaflets According to Oglesby, shortly thereafter he
announced to his companions that he intended to sign his
card immediately , and that Miller thereupon told him to
sign a card for him as well so that when they reached the
town of Portal , Georgia, they could mail the cards.
Oglesby testified that he then signed a card for himself
and one for Miller and that when they reached Portal,
Bazemore likewise asked that Oglesby sign a card for
him. According to Oglesby . Miller then left the car and
mailed all three cards Oglesby ' s testimony was credible
and it was corroborated by Miller, when the latter
testified Bazemore , however, denied that he had
authorized anyone to sign his card, although he conceded
that at the time in question he was riding to work with
Oglesby and Miller and that all of them received union
literature on about the day in question Bazemore testified
on December ll, 1968 After he left the stand, Oglesby
was called as a witness The latter testified that during the
noon recess he was approached by Bazemore at a cafe
near the courthouse in Statesboro , that Bazemore
mentioned the fact that Oglesby had signed his card and
that Bazemore concluded the conversation with the
declaration " I'm got going to say anything about you
signing my card and I'm gonna try and get out of this
mess - if you don ' t " Oglesby ' s testimony was credible
and it was never contradicted by any subsequent testimony
by Bazemore In the light of all the circumstances here
present, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the
cards of both Oglesby and Bazemore should be counted 31
Jerry Potter signed a card dated February 7 Potter
testified that he received the card from Riffe3J as he was
leaving the plant and that the organizer told him that
"At the hearing , the Trial Examiner ordered that Bazemore's card be
placed in the rejected exhibit file This ruling is now withdrawn and
Bazemore's card , marked G C Exh 22-96 , is hereby received
"Potter did not identify Riffe by name, but described him as " the big
274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"they were down here, gonna try to get a Union in but
they had to get enough to get an election in 1134 Although
Potter testified that thereafter he "just glanced over" the
card before signing it, he carefully filled out the entire
card in his own handwriting. Likewise, relevant is the fact
that Potter subsequently attended the union meeting on
February 15 and there signed up as a member of the
organizing committee. Potter's card should be counted
Willie D Robinson signed a card that was dated
January 26. Robinson testified that he received a leaflet
from McIver which had the card imprinted on it, that he
cut out the card, filled out all the blanks on the card and
then mailed it to the Union He testified that although he
did not read the entire card he "read enough to know it
was a union card." According to Robinson, McIver was
the only organizer who spoke to him before he filled out
the authorization and that all McIver said was to urge
him to fill it out and mail it back to the Union Robinson
testified that before he signed the card, Wayne Connor
and Charles Waters, fellow employees, told him to sign
the card and help bring on an election This last
testimony, however, was not very persuasively given and
was made even less convincing by Robinson's concession,
on further examination, that at the time he signed the
card he had not seen either Connor or Waters handing out
cards or participating in any prounion solicitation Under
these circumstances, the Trial Examiner concludes and
finds that Robinson's card should be counted
Woody Royal signed a card at the union meeting on
February 15. According to Royal, both McIver and Riffe
spoke at this meeting and "said something to the effect
that the cards was only to get an election " Royal's
testimony to this effect was not credible and it was
contradicted by that of many others who were at the
meeting, as found earlier herein Of some significance as
to Royal's intentions was the fact that at this same
meeting, Royal also signed up as a member of the
organizing committee The Trial Examiner concludes and
finds that as to any tabulation of the card signatories in
February and March, Royal's card should be counted. On
the other hand, whether it should be counted beyond that
point is open to question Royal was promoted to a
supervisory position shortly after the election and at the
election he acted as an observer for the Company
Whereas, all the credible evidence indicates that he
executed the authorization card and signed the organizing
committee sheet in good faith, at some later point he
obviously changed his mind as is manifested by his having
been selected as a company observer at the election
David Rushing, signed a card that is dated January 25.
He testified that he received the card from one of the
union organizers as he was getting off his shift and that he
signed the card within fifteen minutes after getting it and
without any discussion with the union organizers
According to Rushing, "I read most of it, I guess - most
of it I could read, I read by the dash lights " Rushing did
not go to any union meetings and, apparently, took no
active part in the subsequent union campaign. He was an
intervenor at the hearing and, when questioned by Counsel
for the Respondent, testified that he thought the purpose
one," a term that many witnesses used in describing Riffe who was tall and
rather portly
"As found earlier, Riffe credibly denied that he told any of the
employees that the Union was soliciting cards only to get an election
Moreover , Jerry Jones, in whose car Potter was riding at the time , testified
that the organizer said nothing to them as he handed the employees the
union cards and leaflets
of the card was to hold an election On further
examination as to the basis for this assumption, he
conceded that the card, which he had read, did not
mention an election,JS and that prior to signing the card he
had heard no conversation about an election at the plant
In view of Rushing's frank testimony as to the occasion
on which he signed the card, the fact that the card made
no mention of an election and his concession that he had
heard no discussion of an election in the plant at that
time, the Trial Examiner concludes that an employee
election was an afterthought to this witness Accordingly,
his card must be counted
Charlie C Sheffield signed a card that is dated
February 9 He testified that he received his card from
McIver when the latter was distributing cards and
literature on the plant access road Sheffield attended the
union meeting on February 12 He testified that McIver
did not mention an election at this meeting and that it was
not until "about March" that he first heard McIver
mention the subject at a union meeting According to
Sheffield, at meetings prior to that time, McIver told the
employees that the Union could come in without an
election and on the basis of signed cards alone
Otha Smith identified a card dated February 8 as
having been signed on his behalf by a fellow employee.
Smith testified that he received the card from McIver
when the latter was passing out union cards and leaflets
on the plant access road According to Smith, McIver told
him "Y'all sign these cards and get 'em in, and we're
trying to organize a union out there " Smith testified that
although the card was not read to him, he knew that it
was a union card and that he authorized a coworker to fill
it out and sign it for him Smith's card should be counted
Sammy Strouse signed a card at the union meeting on
February 15 Strouse testified that McIver told those
present that the "the first step toward organizing a union
was to sign the cards " According to Strouse, McIver
further told them that after a majority of the employees
signed cards "the company would be notified they
would have a chance to honor the cards or not If they did
not then the cards would be carried to the Labor
Board and filed for an election "
Charlie S Tucker At some point after the election, but
prior to the hearing, Tucker died. Two cards bearing the
signature "Charlie S Tucker" were offered One card was
dated February 8 and had a backstamp indicating that it
was received at the Tenth Regional Office of the Board at
1.08 p.m on February 21 when the Union filed its petition
for an election The other card was dated February 15
The General Counsel offered two documents from the
Respondent's personnel files, an employee's personal
history statement and a withholding exemption certificate,
both of which bore Tucker's signature. A comparison of
the signature which appears on these last mentioned
documents and that which appears on the authorization
cards indicates that they were all written by the same
individual At the hearing, ruling was reserved on the offer
of Tucker's cards and the personnel records.16 These are
now received The card which is dated February 8 will be
counted.
"Rushing signed a Type A card , reproduced, supra Of course , neither
the "A" nor the " B" type card mentioned an election
"These exhibits are numbered as follows General Counsel's No 252
(card dated February 15), No 252 (a) (card dated February 8), No 252(b)
personal history statement, and No 252 (c) withholding exemption
certificate
J. P. STEVENS & CO.
Freddie Wiley identified a card which was signed for
him by a fellow employee and dated February 7 Wiley
testified that he received the card from McIver as the
latter was distributing cards and literature outside the
plant and that all that McIver said to him at the time was
"fill the card out and mail it in " According to Wiley, he
had Clyde Cone, a coworker, sign it for him and
thereafter that same day he himself mailed the card to the
Union He also testified that he knew that the card in
question was a union authorization card although Cone
did not read it to him. Wiley attended the union meeting
on February 12 and testified that at this time Mclver said
that the only purpose of the cards was to obtain an
election Earlier, it was found that on the basis of credible
evidence, McIver made no such statement Here, however,
and in any event, Wiley's testimony in this connection is
irrelevant with respect to his card which was signed five
days before he attended the meeting in question
Accordingly, his card should be counted
Jimmie Williams identified a card which he signed and
dated February 8 Williams testified that he received the
card from McIver on the highway outside the plant.
According to Williams, at that time, Mclver's only
comment was that he "wanted to get the cards signed
to organize a union . " Williams testified that he had
no other contact with McIver prior to filling out the card
and sending it to the Union He also testified that a few
days prior to the time he had filled out another card and
mailed it in to the Union Moreover, Williams testified
that after the Union began holding meetings he attended
five or six. The card which Williams signed on February 8
should be counted
Regis Wise signed a card that is dated February 17
She testified that Wayne Moore gave her the card in the
plant parking lot, and that although she did not read it at
that time she knew it was a union card and signed it then.
She further testified that Moore had talked with her about
the Union earlier and that he had told her that "to get the
Union in the plant, we would have to have the majority of
the people sign cards, and they would be presented to the
Company, and if the Company did not recognize it, we'd
have an election, and knowing J. P Stevens, they
wouldn't recognize it, and we would have an election, and
that would determine if the Union would come in " Wise's
card should be counted.
Jerry Woodcock identified a card which he signed on
about February 14." He testified that he signed the card
the same day that he received it from Wayne Moore, that
Moore said nothing to him at the time, that the latter
"just handed me the card and I signed " Woodcock's card
should be counted.
Thomas Davis signed a card that is dated January 27
He testified that his wife read the card to him along with
a union leaflet which he received from Otha Smith, a
fellow employee, and that he had his wife sign the card for
him the same day he got it Davis further testified that he
signed the card "cause he (Otha Smith) say they was
gonna have election " At the time he signed the card on
January 27, there had been no mention of an election in
any of the union leaflets or by any of the organizers The
first union meeting was not held until over two weeks
later When questioned as to whether he attended any
union meetings after signing his card, Davis refused to
answer The Trial Examiner concludes that Davis was not
a credible witness with respect to the statement he
"Although the card bears no dates. Woodcock testified that he signed it
about two days after the union meeting on February 12
275
attributed to his coworker and that Davis' card should be
counted
(3) Certain cards mailed to the Union January 29 to
February 14
Durrell Rushing signed a card that is dated January 25.
He testified that he received a leaflet with an imprinted
card from one of the organizers as he left the plant, that
shortly thereafter he cut out the card, signed it and mailed
it to the Union Rushing conceded that he never spoke to
McIver or Riffe and that he attended no union meetings.
On cross-examination he volunteered the statement "I
signed the card for the sole purpose of having an election
only "
Walter Smith signed a card that is dated January 29.
He testified that after getting the leaflet and card, he read
them both, then cut out the card, filled it in and mailed it
According to Smith, he received the card and leaflet from
McIver and at the time the latter told him that "they had
to have a certain number of cards in before they could
file a petition for election "
Council Taylor Lee's card is dated February 2 He
testified that after receiving the card and leaflet on the
highway he brought them home and had his daughter fill
out the card and sign it for him. According to Lee, he
knew the card was a union card when he asked his
daughter to take care of it for him. Lee testified that
although the union organizers said nothing to him when
he first met them on the highway, on a later occasion
McIver spoke to him and said "hurry and get the card off
so we can get an election and get a union out there."
Bobby Key had his wife sign a card for him that is
dated February 8 He testified that he received the card on
the access road from either McIver or Riffe and that at
the time nothing was said about the purpose of the card
He further testified, however, that a couple of days later
Mclver told him that he should "mail it [the card] in so
we can get an election."
Jesse D Glisson had his wife sign a card for him that is
dated February 8 He testified that the union organizer
who handed the card to him on the highway urged him to
sign it and send it back because it was necessary to "get a
majority of cards signed and sent back in. . [to] hold an
election "
Lester Parker had his daughter sign a card for him that
is dated February 9. He testified that a union organizer,
whom he thought to be Riffe, told him "Fill out the card
and get it in we'll see can we have an election out
yonder to see if we can organize the union "
Bernard T Hendrix signed a card that is dated
February 14 He testified that at the time he received the
card he was told "cards was for to have an election "
Dollie Dyches signed a card that is dated February 14.
She testified that she received the card from the
organizers out on the highway and that, although they did
not say anything at that time, the next day or two, they
told her "sign 'em and get 'em, where we can have enough
to have a election for the Union."
As found earlier, on January 24, union organizers Riffe
and Best spent a day in the vicinity of the plant, and
passed out leaflets to the employees on each of the three
shifts It was undisputed that only one type of leaflet was
used. A copy appears in the record. The printed material
on the leaflet recounts the history of the Union's
campaign against Stevens at plants in other areas and
dwells, in particular, on the significance of J P Stevens
& Co v. N L R B, 380 F.2d 292 (C.A 2), cert. denied
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
389 U S. 1005. It concludes with an appeal to the
employees to organize and urges that they fill out and
mail an imprinted authorization card that appears on the
pamphlet. In the last paragraph above this card there
appears the words
We pledge that as soon as a clear majority of fellow
workers in your plant mail us their signed cards we will
demand that J P Stevens commence collective
bargaining
No where in either the leaflet or in the imprinted
authorization card is there any mention of an election
On February 8, Riffe, Best and McIver spent another
day on the access road, again contacting the employees on
each of the three shifts This time they passed out
authorization cards and attached business reply envelopes
to facilitate return of the cards to the Union.
Earlier herein it was found, on the basis of credible
testimony by McIver, Riffe, Best and many of the
employees, that none of the three organizers mentioned
the prospect of an election during their solicitation on
January 24 and February 8 In fact, very few words of
any kind were spoken as the employees drove by in their
cars Insofar as anything was said by the union
representatives it was to emphasize the necessity of the
employees signing the cards promptly in order to organize
a union at the Statesboro plant The foregoing findings
and conclusions are made by the Trial Examiner
notwithstanding the testimony of some of the employees
that in the latter part of January and the first two weeks
of February 1968, the union representatives told them in
words, or in substance, that the cards would be used only
to secure an election It is the conclusion of the Trial
Examiner, based on the findings set forth above, and on
the demeanor of the last mentioned witnesses when they
appeared and testified in December 1968 and February
1969, that their testimony in this regard was hazy,
inaccurate and incredible It is likewise the conclusion of
the Trial Examiner that their afterthoughts, as reflected in
this testimony, do not vitiate the objective act of having
signed the cards Accordingly, it is found that the cards of
Durrell Rushing, Walter Smith, Council Taylor Lee,
Bobby Key, Jesse D Glisson, Lester Parker, Bernard T
Hendrix and Dollie Dyches constitute valid designations
which should be counted
(4) Additional cards signed at the meeting on
February 12
Jack Cannady , Jimmy C Miley and Cliff Rucker
signed cards at the union meeting on February 12.
Cannady testified that he understood the card was "to get
an election ," Miley testified that McIver said that he
wanted the employees to sign the card "to have an
election" and, according to Rucker , McIver urged them to
sign the cards "so he could have an election " All of them
signed the " B" type cards which have only four lines of
type whereby the signatory accepts membership in the
Union and designates it as his collective - bargaining agent.
Both Cannady and Rucker recalled hearing McIver tell
them that lust as there was no such thing as a woman
being a little bit pregnant , an employee was either for the
Union or not for it. Both Cannady and Miley
acknowledged having filled out the entire card in their
own hand before signing it . Rucker, an illiterate , testified
that he signed his card although he did not fill it in.
Rucker further testified that after this particular meeting
he attended approximately four other meetings during the
course of the organizational campaign
As found earlier, McIver and Riffe credibly testified
that they did not tell any employees at this meeting that
the cards would be used solely to get an election or that
they were to be signed in order to get an election Here,
again, on the basis of present Board case law, the overt
act of signing the card on the part of each of the
foregoing employees must be considered determinative
McEwen Manufacturing Company, 173 NLRB No 99
Accordingly, the cards of Cannady, Miley, and Rucker
must be counted
(5) Additional cards signed at union meeting on
February 15
Several of the employees who signed cards dated
February 15 testified that at the union meeting on that
date, McIver, or Riffe, told them that the purpose of the
cards was to have an election According to Argentine
Raymond, "so they could file a petition for the election",
Wmard 0 Burke, "to get enough signed cards for an
election", Jerry Collins, the cards were for an "election",
Veronica Keel, "sign [cards] 'cause they were gonna have
election", Rosa L Lewis, "sign the cards so they could
hold the election at J P Stevens", Carolyn Lovett, card
"was to get an election", John C Mills, purpose of card
was "to organize for an election", James Pounds, "hurry
up and get 'em signed in, so they could have an election",
and Linda M Bolton, "if we'd sign enough cards to
have the election that would decide whether the union'd
come in or not" Some of the foregoing, such as Bolton,
Lovett and Raymond testified that they never read the
card although they acknowledged having filled out the
entire card in their own handwriting All of the
above-named employees conceded that at the union
meeting of February 15, they had, in fact, signed the cards
which were received in evidence
As was the case with respect to testimony of the
meeting held three days earlier, the Trial Examiner found
credible the denials of McIver and Riffe that on February
15 they had ever told the employees present at the
meeting that the cards would be used solely to get an
election. Consequently, the Trial Examiner concludes and
finds that the cards of the following named employees
must be counted Linda M Bolton, Wmard 0 Burke,
Jerry Collins, Veronica Keel, Rosa L Lewis, Carolyn
Lovett, John C. Mills, James Pounds, and Argentine
Raymond.
(6) Additional cards signed on February 14, 15, 16,
and 17
Jack Bragg signed a card that is dated February 15 He
testified that McIver handed him the card and told him
that the purpose of it was to get an election. Although
Bragg testified that he did not read the card before filling
it out and signing it, he conceded that McIver read the
card to him Mclver's earlier denial that he told any of
the employees that the sole purpose of the card was to get
an election has been found credible, supra Bragg's card
should be counted.
Ruth J Kendrick signed a card dated February 16 She
testified that she filled it out and signed it after James D.
Miller, a fellow employee, told her that "they only lacked
a few more so we could get election in the plant." The
card in question was a "B" type Kendrick conceded that
she read the card and she specifically recalled the first line
which stated "I hereby accept membership in the Textile
Workers Union of America of my own free will " Mildred
J. P. STEVENS & CO. 277
G. Bailey signed a card dated February 17 She testified
that employee James D Miller told her that the card was
needed so that the Union could go to the Labor Board for
an election She likewise testified that he further told her
that the Union was a good thing and that it would help
the employees Bailey conceded having read the card
before she signed it, as she candidly explained "I'm sure I
musty read it all very briefly and hurriedly - I had to
[to] fill it out " Bailey never sought to withdraw her card
The statements quoted above which Kendrick and Bailey
attributed to Miller were credibly contradicted by that
employee when he took the stand The cards of Kendrick
and Bailey should be counted
Several other cards here in issue were signed between
February 14 to 16 They were solicited by employee
Wayne Connor who, according to the signatories, told
them that the purpose of the card was to get an election
Thus, the following statements were attributed to Connor,
bN Marv B Bolton "sign that card to have an election
Larry Finch "he needed some more [cards]'fore they
could file for an election ", Malcolm Mock "we had to
get enough of a majority of 'em signed, where we would
apply for election". Charles Stewart "sign a card they
could send in for an election", and Walter V Street
"card was to give the Union authority to have
election "
Bolton further testified that she never read her card,
notwithstanding the fact that she filled out the entire card
in her own handwriting Finch attended no meetings prior
to signing the card, but did attend some thereafter He
conceded that before signing his card he "might" have
read the union leaflet that was distributed prior to that
time, and he also conceded that at a union meeting some
time later McIver told all present that anyone who wanted
to withdraw his card could do so, but that he did not take
advantage of this opportunity Connor credibly testified
that he had never told Finch that the purpose of the card
was to get an election According to Connor, Finch's
principal concern at the time was whether Plant Manager
Bachman would ever see his card. Connor testified "I told
him I didn't think that Mr Bachman ever would get
ahold of it, because the Union had the cards And so he
said he would sign the card, so he took it around the
corner and signed it " Mock, an illiterate, acknowledged
that Connor had read the card to him, specifically recalled
hearing the words "I hereby accept membership in the
Textile Workers Union of America of my own free will"
and testified that he understood that language. Although
Stewart testified that he did not read the card before
signing it, he acknowledged having gone to union meetings
before he signed and stated that he attended several
thereafter He further testified that he never attempted to
get his card back In addition to the testimony of Street
which is quoted above, that employee also testified "
the' reason I finally signed its [the cards was to try to help
the workin' conditions there in the shop, with the men I
had to work for ." Connor specifically denied having
told any of the foregoing employees that the purpose of
the card was to get an election As to the occasion when
Street signed a card, Connor further testified, credibly,
that Street "asked me for the union card, I didn't offer
him the union card to start with."
On the basis of the foregoing findings, it is the
conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the cards of the
following named employees constitute valid designations
and should be counted Mary B. Bolton, Larry Finch,
Malcolm Mock, Charles Stewart and Walter V Street
James R Akins, also known as "Randy" Akins, signed
two cards, one dated February 15 and the other dated
February 26 Wayne Connor credibly testified that he
secured the second card from Akins and witnessed its
signing on the latter date According to Connor, when he
first approached Akins to sign a card, the employee
protested that he had already signed one Connor testified
that he then asked Akins if he would sign another card,
since at the moment there was no record of the first
authorization According to Connor, Akins thereupon
signed another card On cross-examination, Connor
testified that he later learned that McIver, who was out of
the area at that time, had the first card with him At the
hearing, when shown this first card Connor identified the
signature as that of Akins This latter card is dated
February 15 and also bears a stamp on the back
indicating that it was received at 102 p m on February
21 in the Tenth Regional Office Upon the foregoing
facts, the Trial Examiner concludes that both cards were
valid designations and that the card dated February 15
should be counted for the purpose of determining the
Union's majority, or the lack thereof, on February 17
Several other cards that were received in evidence are
in a different category. The issues with respect to these
cards are set forth below
Rochel E Bland signed a card dated February 16
Bland testified that Larry Skinner, a fellow employee,
came to his home and told him that "they didn't need but
10 more to have enough to have an election so I
signed " According to Bland, he did not read the card
before signing it
Harry Dyches signed a card dated February 15 Dyches
testified that the card was given to him by Bobby Joe
Roberts, a coworker, who told him "it was an election
card, for me to sign it, send it in, where we would get an
election " According to Dyches, he did not read the card
and it was never read to him before he signed it
Florence Hendrix signed a card dated February 17
Hendrix testified that Bill English and Marcel Thompson,
two fellow employees, brought the card to her home and
told her that it was only for an election. She testified that
before signing the card, she neither read it nor had it read
to her
Neither Skinner, Roberts, English nor Thompson
testified with respect to any of the foregoing incidents.
Consequently, the testimony of Bland, Dyches and
Hendrix stands undenied and uncontradicted. Under these
circumstances the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that
these three cards should not be counted. Cf Levi Strauss
& Co, 175 NLRB No 57 (Thompson)
(7) Cards offered without testimony of signatory or
witnesses to the execution thereof
The General Counsel offered nine cards which bore
signatures that purportedly were those of Edward English,
James Hagan, Margaret B. Lanier, Rufus Lott, Larry F.
Mans, Irma C. Palmer, Gilmore Claude Reddy, Edward
Thompson, and Donald Wilson The foregoing names
were those of employees in the unit on February 17 Je
None of these individuals appeared at the hearing to
testify. The General Counsel asserted that they had been
subpoenaed but had failed to respond Thereafter the
General Counsel was unable to produce any witness who
could testify that he had seen these authorizations
executed. Union Representative McIver was asked about
several, but frankly conceded that he was unable to
recognize the signatures in question and that he had no
"At some time after February 17, however , English apparently was
278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
knowledge of any of the circumstances surrounding their
execution
The General Counsel thereupon offered in evidence,
along with the authorization cards bearing the names of
above-described employees, a photostatic copy of the
employment application and the withholding exemption
certificate for each of these individuals The latter
documents had been secured from the Respondent's
personnel files and both the employment application and
the exemption certificate bore the signature of the
employee At the hearing, the Trial Examiner rejected the
offer of these exhibits "
In his brief the General Counsel urges that this ruling
be reconsidered. In support of this argument several cases
are cited, including Combined Metal Mfg Corp , 123
NLRB 895, 896-897, Philamon Laboratories, Inc , 131
NLRB 80, 87, enfd 298 F 2d 176 (C A 2), cert denied
370 U S 919, and Heck's, Inc, 166 NLRB No 32, fn. I
These are authority for the proposition that the Trial
Examiner is vested with discretion to make signature
comparisons in a case such as the present where
documents of unquestioned authenticity from an
employer's personnel records are available for such
comparisons
Upon consideration of the foregoing cases, it is the
conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the original ruling,
rejecting the exhibits in question, must be withdrawn, and
the exhibits admitted Accordingly, they are hereby
received '0
An examination of these exhibits and a comparison in
each instance of the signature on the authorization card
with the signature which appears on the employment
application and on the withholding exemption certificate
of the employee by that name, establishes, in the judgment
of the Trial Examiner, that in the absence of any
countervailing evidence, that the nine authorization cards
were signed by the employees whose names appear
thereon
There remains, however, the question as to when these
cards were signed The cards bear various dates from
January 25 to March 28 One, that of Larry F Muns was
undated As noted earlier, there was, of curse, no oral
testimony offered as to when these cards were signed The
General Counsel contends that, in the absence of any
evidence to the contrary, it should be presumed that the
date of each card was the date, on or about which, the
authorization was signed That, however, is a presumption
that the Trial Examiner in this instance is not prepared to
make On the other hand, the cards of Larry F Muns and
Irma C Palmer bear on their reverse sides the stamp of
the Tenth Region, indicating that on February 21, they
were delivered to that office in support of the Union's
terminated for he does not appear on the list of eligibles in the unit which
the Respondent supplied for March 18
"On April 22, 1969, on the assumption that the original authorization
cards of the foregoing named employees which had been offered at the
hearing , had been lost , the General Counsel filed a motion to substitute
photostatic copies for the original exhibits Subsequent to the submission
of this motion , the Reporter located the exhibits in question Consequently,
insofar as the pending motion of the General Counsel requires action, it is
hereby denied
**The exhibits which are now received bear the following numbers G C
Exhs 22-253, 22-253 (a), 22-253 ( b)(Edward Thompson ), 22-254, 22-254
(a), 22-254 (b) (Rufus Lott), 22-255, 22-255 (a), 22-255 (b) (Gilmore
Reddy), 22-256, 256 (a), 22-256 ( b) (Irma C Palmer ), 22-257, 22-257 (a),
22-257 (b) (Larry Mons), 22-258, 22-258 (a), 22-258 ( b) (Margaret Lanier),
22-259, 22-259 (a) 22-259 ( b) (James H Hagen ), 22-260, 22-260 (a), 22-260
(b) (Edward English ), and 22-261, 22-261 (a), 22-261 ( b) (Donald H
Wilson)
representation petition Two others, those of James H
Hagen and Edward Thompson likewise bear the Regional
Office stamp, with the date of February 28 The Board
has held that such stamp imprints constitute valid
evidence that such cards were signed on or before the date
indicated by the stamp mark Combined Metal Mfg
Corp , 123 NLRB 895 Accordingly, the Trial Examiner
concludes and finds that the cards of Larry F Muns and
Irma C. Palmer should be counted as valid designations
on and after February 21, and the cards of James H
Hagen and Edward Thompson as valid designations on
and after February 28 The other cards which do not bear
such a backstamp, viz, those of Edward English, Margaret
B. Lanier, Rufus Lott, Gilmore Claude Reddy and
Donald Wilson will not be counted for any purpose
James Larry Skinner A card bearing the name of this
employee and dated February 10 was received in evidence
Skinner testified at the hearing on October 29, but did not
appear as a witness in Case 7450 Presumably, he was still
an employee at the time of the latter hearing since his
name is on the list of Intervenors in Case 7450 11 Wayne
Connor testified that he received the foregoing card from
another employee, that he had not seen Skinner sign the
card and that he could not recall who had given it to him
Connor, however, testified that on the basis of his
knowledge of Skinners' handwriting, he recognized the
signature on the card as that of James Larry Skinner On
the other hand, Martha Fay Marsh, also an employee and
a sister of Skinner, testified that she did not recognize the
signature in question as that of her brother,
notwithstanding the fact that she had seen him sign his
name many times Connor impressed the Trial Examiner
as a completely frank and honest witness throughout his
extended appearance on the stand In this instance,
however, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that
the testimony of Mrs Marsh as to the identity of the
signature is entitled to greater weight than that of Connor
Finally, as to this card there was no clear evidence as to
whether it was signed on the date it bore, since Connor
was not questioned as to when he received it and the card
bears no backstamp of Region 10 Under these
circumstances, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner
that this card should not be counted
(8) The Union's majority status on February 17, 1968
A tabulation of the authorization cards discussed above
discloses that, as of February 17, 169 employees had
signed valid designations of the Union as their
collective-bargaining agent " At that time there were 348
employees in the appropriate unit " The requisite
majority, therefore, would have been 175 Since the Union
lacked six valid cards of having attained that number, it
must be, and is, found, that, as of the date of the initial
demand for recognition, the Union did not have a
majority within the unit
The various lists of eligibles which the Respondent supplied contain the
name " Larry J Skinner ," but not a James Larry Skinner On the other
hand , on the list of their clients supplied by Counsel for the Intervenors,
there appears the name James Larry Skinner For the purposes of this
discussion it will be presumed that "James Larry" and "Larry J " are one
and the same
"For a recapitulation of the names of the employees whose cards make
up this total , see Appendix A, infra
"See Appendix B There were 347 names on the list submitted by the
Respondent However , the name of Wayne Connor was not included Since
it was found earlier that Connor was discriminatorily terminated on
J. P. STEVENS & CO. 279
As found earlier, the Union's demand was continuing
and was renewed at various times during the succeeding 2
months Consequently, it is necessary to consider the
validity of various additional authorization cards which
employees signed during the period from February 18 to
March 18 To the issues in this connection we will now
turn
c. Cards Signed After February 17 and on or Before
M arch 18
(I) Cards as to which there was no dispute
The cards of the following named employees were
signed after February 18 and on or before March 18, the
signatories testified to having signed the cards, or a
witness to the signature testified, and there was no
testimony or evidence that the employee was told that the
card would be used solely for the purpose of getting an
election
Eugene Bazemore" Melba Mangrum
Howell Berry Martha Fay Marsh
Rosa Byrd Lillian Messex
James F Bunch Robert Mills
Vera F Bunch Gordon Mincey
Freeda Daggers d5 Shelvy J Morgan
Monroe Ellis John T Parker
Verdell Finch Lamar Rountree
Jeannette Harley Lavinia P Salyer
Grace Hollingsworth Mary Sanders
Evelyn Jones Hugh G. Strickland
Harry J McMillan, Jr. Norman Wells
Donald R Woodcock
Earlier in this decision it was held that, four other cards
constituted valid designations and should be counted in
this period These were the cards of James H Hagan,
Larry Muns, Irma C Palmer, and Elwood Thompson
(2) Other cards signed after February 17 and on or
before March 18
The cards of the following named employees should be
counted for the reason set forth below
J C Brown signed a card that is dated February 19
Brown testified that a union organizer handed him the
card when he stopped along the highway near the plant,
that he read the card, that he understood the card and
that he filled it out and signed it in response to a
question from Counsel for the Respondent, Brown
testified that he understood that if "there was enough
cards they'd hold an election at the plant " However;
Brown conceded that he had no conversation with the
union organizers and that he did not get such information
from them or from the one .vho gave him the card
G W Johnson signed a card that is dated February 22
Johnson testified that he filled out the entire card and
signed it after Wayne Moore, a fellow employee, told him
that the card was for an election. On the other hand,
Johnson conceded that he also heard that there might
come a time when the cards could be used to make the
Company recognize the Union even without an election
Johnson's card should be counted.
February 16, his name must be added to the list
"Bazemore ' s card does not bear a date However , the reverse side of the
card has a time stamp of Region 10 indicating that it was received there at
103 p in , on February 21
On the Company's records, Daggers was listed as "Betty F Daggers
Ida Ann McGahee signed a card that is dated February
23 She filled out the entire card and signed it, but
testified that although she read the first few lines on the
card she only "glanced over" the rest of the language
According to McGahee, Roosevelt Love, a fellow
employee, gave her the card and, in doing so, asked that
she sign it "so we can get that old union man in here and
get that election and get it over with " Love subsequently
testified as to the occasions when he had sought to
persuade Mrs McGahee to sign a card He credibly
denied having told her that she should sign to help get an
election According to Love, he told her that "if she
signed it [the card] she was signing it to organize the
Union, to get a union in the plant "
Doyle Sapp A card bearing the purported signature of
this employee and dated February 12 was offered in
evidence by the General Counsel Sapp did not appear as
a witness. According to the General Counsel, it was his
understanding that Sapp had left the State and had left no
forwarding address. Roosevelt Love, a fellow employee,
testified that over a period of three months he frequently
and daily had seen Sapp sign production cards on the fob,
and that in his opinion the signature on the card was that
of Doyle Sapp. This card also has on its reverse side the
time stamp of the Tenth Region indicating that it was
filed there at 10 28 a m on February 28 At the hearing,
the Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the offer of this
card It is now received The Trial Examiner also finds
that this card should be counted as a valid designation on
and after February 28
The signatories to a number of cards which bore
various dates between February 22 and March 11, and
which McIver had solicited, testified that he had told
them, in one fashion or another, that the purpose of the
card was to get an election Thus, Mclver was alleged to
have said, according to Janiea A Lanier, Ji , "if we'd
enough signed we'd have election", DeWitt Love, Jr , "if
the people would sign the cards that then they could take
those cards and get an election with them", Marian
McGrady, "when he got enough signatures, there
would be an election", Thomar Mock, "Come on and
sign . let's get an election", Sallie Ward, "he was trying
to get enough majority of people to sign . he say
somethin' about film' a petition [for] election". Doris
Peacock, cards "were to have an election", Emma
McKeehan, "everybody had done signed the card, except
just a few, and he wanted my signature to help finish up
the cards, to get an election Alva Lee Anderson,
"just sign it [the card] to have the election", and
according to Gene T Dixon, Mclver and Wayne Connor
told him they "had 85 percent and he was wanting to get
as much as he could for an election "
As found earlier, the Union filed a petition for an
election on February 21, and immediately thereafter
announced this fact in a leaflet distributed to all the
employees Some of the above witnesses, such as
McGrady, conceded, on cross-examination, a complete
awareness of the fact that an election petition had been
filed before McIver ever came to their homes On
cross-examination, Ward conceded that when McIver
visited her on March 5, he did not mention a "petition,"
but that it was she who initiated the subject and thereafter
when she endeavored to question him about the pending
election he suggested that she get the answers by coming
to the Union meetings All of the above-named employees
conceded that they had, in fact, signed the cards which
were received in evidence
280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
McIver credibly denied having told any of the foregoing
named employees that the purpose of the card was to get
an election For him to have uttered the statements
attributed to him by these witnesses, after the Union had
filed its election petition and widely publicized that fact,
would have been totally unexplicable In any event, and on
the basis of the cases already cited in connection with this
issue, McEwen Manufacturing Company, 172 NLRB No
99, Levi Straucc & Co . 172 NLRB No 57, the Trial
Examiner concludes and finds that the cards of Alva Lee
Anderson, Gene T Dixon, James A Lanier, Jr , DeWitt
Love, Jr , Marian McGrady, Emma McKeehan, Thomas
Mock," Doris Peacock, and Sallie Ward should be
counted
Wilber Bryant A card dated February 20 and marked
with an "X" beside Bryant's name was received in
evidence after considerable testimony was adduced as to
the circumstances in which it had been secured McIver
testified that he discussed the Union with Bryant at a
restaurant on the highway near the plant, that after he
had answered Bryant's questions and read the card to
him, the latter, an illiterate, asked that McIver fill out the
card and sign it for him, after which Bryant placed an
"X" beside the signature which McIver had written
Mclver's testimony was corroborated by that of Ernest T
Mock, another employee Mock testified that he was in
the restaurant with Bryant, at the time McIver and Riffe
arrived, that he heard the discussion between McIver and
Bryant, that he heard Bryant ask that McIver fill out the
card for him and that he saw Bryant put an "X" on the
card. At the hearing, Bryant, one of the Intervenors, at
first denied that he had ever authorized McIver to sign a
card for him Later, however, he modified this to the
point where he testified that he could not remember
having put an "X" on the card and that McIver had told
him that he needed signed cards "to have election " He
conceded, however, that rather than sign his name, he
customarily used an "X" instead of his signature Bryant
also conceded that after this meeting with McIver and
Mock, he attended several union meetings McIver and
Mock gave the more credible account of this conversation
with Bryant It is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner
that on February 20, when this encounter occurred,
Bryant freely assented to sign a card and that, as McIver
testified, it was Bryant that asked McIver to sign the card
for him Accordingly, Bryant's card should be counted
Several witnesses who signed cards on various dates
between February 21 and March 16, testified that Union
Organizer Estes Riffe told them that the purpose of the
card was to get an election Thus, Riffe was alleged to
have said, according to J W Mock, "purpose of signing
the card was to hold an election that was the only
purpose", Johnnie Pearl Tremble, "he had to have a
certain percentage before they could file for the
National Labor Board and. . for election", Hazel Brown,
"if we get enough [cards] we could have an election...".
Geneva Stephens, "around 80 percent" had signed, and
Wendell McElveen, Jr. "sign the card and get it `cause
they was fixin' to have an election " Several of these
witnesses conceded, on cross-examination, that they knew
that the Union had filed its election petition prior to the
time they were asked to sign an authorization card Thus,
Mock (who signed a card on March 16) admitted that he
had seen the pamphlet that the Union distributed on
about February 21 which was captioned "Union asks
Government for vote at J P Stevens Plant" and which
announced that the Textile Workers had filed a
representation petition with the Board Mock also testified
that shortly thereafter he saw a notice on the plant
bulletin board wherein the Company promised that it
would keep the employees advised as to developments
with respect to the Union's petition On
cross-examination, Mrs Tremble (who signed a card on
February 22) testified that in her conversation with Riffe,
he told her that "it had already been decided that there
would be an election at the plant " Stephens (who signed
a card on March 7) conceded that at the time Riffe
contacted her, he "probably" told her that the Union had
already filed an election petition Two of these witnesses
testified that they discussed the advantages of a Union
with the organizer before signing According to Tremble,
she questioned Riffe as to "What was it [the Union] all
about, and he told me that where we pay for insurance,
we wouldn't have to pay for any " Brown, whose card was
dated February 23, testified that she had signed another
card on February 15 On this earlier occasion Joel
Oglesby, a fellow employee had solicited her signature
According to Brown, Oglesby told her at that time that
the Union would mean "more money bring more
money in all the checks would be a good thing in the
plant and would bring better working conditions." Brown
testified that on this earlier occasion, when she also had
signed a card, there had been no mention of an election "
Riffe credibly denied that he had told any of the foregoing
employees that the purpose of the card was to secure an
election On the basis of the foregoing findings, it is the
conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the cards of the
following named employees constituted valid designations
and should be counted Hazel Brown, Windell McElveen,
Jr, J W Mock, Johnnie Pearl Tremble, and Geneva
Stephens
Another group of witnesses who signed cards after
February 21 and before March 18, testified that, in
soliciting their cards, Wayne Connor told them, in effect,
that the card was to be used only to get an election Thus,
Connor was alleged to have said, according to John P
Ivey, "if they got a certain number of cards, . they
would file for an election", Jimmie Reddick, "sign to have
an election", Thomas G Hendrix, "he lacked but a few
more people so they could get an election". Glenda M
Holloway, "he said it was only for an election", John H
Sampson, "sign that card to get - to have election", and
Eulis DeLoach, "they wanted to get enough [cards] to get
an election " All of these cards were signed several days
after the Union had actually filed its representation
petition. That these witnesses fully realized that this step
had been taken prior to their signing the cards was
reflected in the testimony of several on cross-examination
Thus, both Reddick and Ivey signed cards on February
24, three days after the Union filed its petition Reddick
conceded that what Connor may have told him was "We
want to get enough cards signed to win the election," and
"Mock testified that when McIver came to his home , the union agent
was accompanied by James D Miller , an employee well known to Mock
Miller , when called as rebuttal witness , testified that Mock was a friend
whom he knew well and that when they arrived at the home of the latter,
Mock stated , " I've been waitin ' I've been thinkin ' about it , but the right
one just hasn ' t come along , but I'll sign it "
"Brown testified that in addition to the cards signed on February IS and
February 23, she signed a third on March 28 According to Brown, she
signed the second card after being told by the organizers that the first card
had been lost She testified that she signed the third when it was pointed
out to her by the organizer that her signature on the second card had been
printed rather than signed
J. P. STEVENS & CO.
Ivey conceded that Connor and the employee with him
said that there would be an election Deloach, who had
signed another card and mailed it to the Union before
Connor asked him to sign a card on February 25, testified
on cross-examination that Connor had said nothing about
an election but that it was he who assumed that that was
the purpose of the card As DeLoach put it, "That was
my general idea " Connor credibly testified that he told
none of these employees that the only purpose of the card
was to get an election With respect to his conversation
with Sampson, Connor testified that this employee told
him that he was afraid to sign a card for fear the
Company would discharge him According to Connor,
"He asked me would Mr Bachman see the card cause
in one of the speeches Mr Bachman [said] that later on
the cards would be laid on the table and he thought
Mr Bachman would get the cards before there was an
election " Connor testified that after he assured Sampson
that Bachman would not have a chance to see the cards
before an election, Sampson signed an authorization The
Trial Examiner concludes and finds, on the basis of the
foregoing, that the cards of DeLoach, Hendrix, Holloway,
Ivey, Reddick, and Sampson constitute valid designations
and should be counted
Daniel Dvches This employee signed a card that is
dated February 21 According to Dyches, on an earlier
occasion, Estes Rifte and Wayne Connor came to his
house and sought to have him sign up as a member of the
organizing committee, but that he had refused Dyches
testified that one evening two or three days later, Wayne
Connor, Charles Nessmith, and Randall Groover came to
his home and sought to convince him that he should sign
a card According to Dyches, Connor told him "the card's
only to have an election at the plant " Dyches
testified that when he continued to resist the suggestion
that he sign, Connor suggested that they drive down the
road some distance from Dyches' home and there Connor
again urged him to sign the card According to Dyches, at
that point, and in the darkness, he signed the card At the
hearing, Connor denied having mentioned an election
during this discussion and denied that he or any of his
companions had threatened Dyches Whereas the latter
sought to give the impression that he was pressured into
signing the card, in this respect Dyches was not a
convincing witness Admittedly, no physical violence
occurred either then or later Dyches conceded that the
three employees in question were friends of his and that
this friendship continued after the card signing as it had
existed before He further conceded that after signing the
card, he went to two union meeting, at least one of them
with Nessmith and Groover, and that he never attempted
to revoke his card. Under the circumstances disclosed by
the foregoing findings, and on the basis of the demeanor
of these i witnesses, when they appeared and testified, the
Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Dyches, in fact,
was not coerced, that he signed the authorization card of
his own volition, and that it should be counted as a valid
designation
Donald D Brannen This employee signed a card that
is dated March 9 Brannen testified that he signed the
card at the behest of Thelma Driggers, a coworker, and
that Driggers told him "sign it for election - so we could
have an election " Brannen was not a convincing witness
in his appearance on the stand Further, in view of the
fact that over two weeks before he signed the card, the
Union had filed an election petition and thereafter had
given wide publicity to this action, it seems most unlikely
that Driggers would have made the comment which
281
Brannen attributed to her Finally, Brannen conceded that
after signing the card he attended several union meetings
and that on March 28, he signed the organizing committee
sheet Under these circumstances, the Trial Examiner
concludes and finds that Brannen was not led to sign the
card by any misrepresentation, that he intended the
consequences that would flow from the objective act of
signing the card, and that his card must be counted as a
valid designation
The issues with respect to four other cards that were
signed during the period from February 18 to March 18
must now be considered
Math Brinson signed a card dated February 19 Brinson
testified that Jimmy Lesley, a fellow employee, filled out
it for him and that Lesley told him at the time that "they
needed some more cards to have an election " Brinson
testified that he knew the card was a union card, but that
he did not read it before signing it
Raye Joyce McCullough signed a card dated February
20 Mrs. McCullough testified that Bobby Joe Roberts, a
coworker, asked her to sign the card and that he told her
that "if we got a majority of the people to sign cards, the
cards [would] call for election and the election would
decide whether the Union went in and that would be it "
According to McCullough, the following night she went to
a union meeting and there signed another card, but that
she never read either of the two authorization which she
signed
Neither Lesley nor Roberts testified with respect to any
of the foregoing incidents Consequently, the testimony of
Brinson and McCullough stands undenied and
uncontradicted Under these circumstances the Trial
Examiner concludes and finds that these two cards should
not be counted Cf Levi Strauss & Co , 175 NLRB No
57 (Thompson)
Martha Baker A card signed "Martha Baker" and
dated February 26 was offered by the General Counsel.
Baker, a member of the unit was not called as a witness
Nor was any witness called by the General Counsel to
testify as to the circumstances in which the card had been
executed. James D Miller, a coworker, was called and
testified that on the basis of his knowledge of Baker's
signature, he believed that the signature on the card was
that of Martha Baker. On the other hand, Miller
conceded that Baker had not handed him the card, and he
gave no testimony which would establish when the card
had been signed. Moreover, there was no Regional Office
time stamp on the back of the card Miller's testimony as
to the identity of the signature was credible, but in the
present state of the record there is no evidence
independently of what appears on the face of the card to
establish when it was signed. In the light of these facts, it
is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that this card
should not be counted
Linda Strickland A card signed by Strickland and
dated March 1 was identified by Reba Lott, a coworker
The latter testified that at the time Strickland was not at
work, but that "she was off to have her baby "
Strickland's name does not appear on any of the lists of
unit employees submitted by the Respondent. The General
Counsel contends that Strickland was on maternity leave
at the time in question, that she was still a member of the
unit and that her card should be counted To support this
contention, the General Counsel put on one witness,
Jeannette Harley, who testified that she herself had been
on maternity leave while a company employee and
returned to her job without having to be rehired On the
other hand, Reba Lott, also an employee and the one who
282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
secured Strickland's signature on the authorization card,
testified that she knew of no company policy on maternity
leave The Respondent offered a separation notice on
Strickland which is dated January 18, 1968, and which
states that she quit without notice on January 17 and left
the plant before the end of her shift Strickland herself
never testified and there is no evidence in the record that
she returned to work after the last mentioned date or that
she ever attempted to do so The Trial Examiner
concludes and finds that the General Counsel's theory that
Strickland was on maternity leave at the time she signed a
card is not supported by the evidence in the record and
that her card, therefore, should not be counted
(3) The Union's majority status on March 18, 1968
A tabulation of the authorization cards discussed above,
discloses that from February 18 to March 18, 56
employees signed valid designations of the Union as their
collective-bargaining agent 18 Earlier herein, it was found
that 169 employees in the unit had signed valid
authorization cards on or before February 17. By March
18, one of these individuals49 was no longer in the
Respondent's employ On the latter date there were 343
employees in the appropriate unit 50 The requisite majority
therefore, would have been 172 At that time the Union
had secured a total of 224 valid authorization cards from
the employees then in the unit This was, of course, a
substantial majority on March 18, when the Union
renewed its demand for recognition The Trial Examiner
so finds
d. Cards signed after March 18 and before April 20
Since the Board may not agree with the Trial
Examiner's findings that on March 18, the Union had a
majority within the unit, it is necessary now to consider
the validity of the remaining authorization cards which
were offered and received
(1) Cards as to which there is no dispute
i ne cards of the following named employees were
signed on or before April 20, the signatories testified to
having signed the cards, or a witness to the signature
testified, and there was no testimony or evidence that the
employee was told by the solicitor that the card would be
used solely for the purpose of getting an election
Jackson Brinson
Ahmedow Godbee
Marvin Hendrix
Mary Rieder
Carnell Rushing
(2) Other cards signed prior to April 20
Several of the employees testified that union
representatives McIver or Riffe told them that the
purpose of the cards was to have an election Riffe said,
according to Ruby Mae Griner, that the card "was for
election, and [the] more they could get signed up, the
quicker they'd have election and election would decide
whether they'd have a Union or not", Evelyn Y Lee, "if
"For a recapitulation of the names of the employees whose cards make
up this total , see Appendix C, infra
"Doy Woods
"There were 341 names on the list submitted by the Respondent
However, this listing does not contain the names of Wayne Connor and
William Gary Akins, both of whom, as found, supra , were discriminatorily
terminated by the Respondent on February 16 and March 1, respectively
enough of them would sign the card we would have
election", Mclver said, according to Marie Peacock,
"he'd like to get as many of us to sign the cards in order
to get the plant to have an election", Wanda C Bragg,
"they had to have 51 percent to sign a card to have
an election", and Evelyn Futch, "purpose of signin' the
card was to get an election " The cards of these five
employees bore various dates from March 20 to March
27 This was subsequent not only to the Union's filing of
its petition for an election, but also to the representation
hearing on that petition which was held on March 18
Both events were widely publicized by the Union Lee
conceded that at the time she signed her card, she knew
that the Union had already filed its petition Peacock
conceded that at the time she signed her card, Mclver
"could have" told her that the Union had filed for an
election Largely characteristic of this group, most of
whom testified at the hearing that they did not read the
card at the time they signed it, was Ruby Mae Griner
This witness was called by the Intervenors and on direct
examination testified that she read the card only insofar
as it was necessary to locate the place to put in her
signature and her address. The naivete as to
organizational matters which she endeavored to convey on
direct examination did not survive cross-examination
During the latter, she conceded that she had been to
several union meetings before she signed the card and
several thereafter In fact, she could only recall having
missed one of the numerous meetings which the Union
held during its campaign She also signed the organizing
committee sheet and she was listed as one of the volunteer
organizers in the bulletin which the Union distributed to
all the employees on the eve of the election Finally, she
conceded that she never tried to get her card back
Earlier, it was found that both McIver and Riffe credibly
testified that during their solicitation of the employees
they had never told them that the cards would be used
solely to get an election. In accordance with the
disposition of similar questions presented earlier in this
decision, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the
cards of these five employees, viz, Ruby Mae Griner,
Evelyn Y Lee, Marie Peacock, Wanda C Bragg, and
Evelyn Futch must be counted
There remain six other cards which were received and
which must now be considered
Mavis Cobb signed a card dated March 27 She
testified that Joel Oglesby, a fellow employee, solicited the
card and told her "Sign the card and help us get an
election " She also testified that she did not read the card
before she signed it On the other hand, she conceded that
she filled out the entire card in her own handwriting
Oglesby testified, credibly, that, during this discussion, he
asked Cobb "to sign a card to organize" and that he had
talked about the election Cobb conceded during her
examination that before she signed her card she had heard
that an election was already scheduled in the plant At the
hearing, Cobb was a voluble, opinionated and incredible
witness On the basis of the foregoing findings, the Trial
Examiner concludes that there was no misrepresentation
to Cobb as to the purpose of the card and that she was
not told that the sole purpose of the card was to get an
election Accordingly, the card of Mavis Cobb should be
counted.
Lillie M Thorpe signed a card dated March 19
Maggie May Baldwin signed an authorization dated
March 20, as did John Owens, and Joyce Morris signed
one dated March 22 All of these cards were solicited by
Wayne Moore. The latter said, according, to Baldwin,
J. P. STEVENS & CO 283
that "if they got enough cards signed it would be an
election", according to Thorpe, that the matter would be
decided "only by election, because J P Stevens would not
recognize [the union] no other way", and, according to
Owens and to Morris, that the card was to be used to
hold, or get, an election During the organizational
campaign, Moore had been active among the prounion
group of employees By the time of the hearing, however,
he had become one of the prominent intervenors. On the
stand, he testified that during his canvass of the employees
he told them that the cards would be used only to get an
election. This testimony by Moore was incredible and it
was contradicted by that of several employees from whom
he solicited authorizations Moreover, the testimony of
Baldwin, Thorpe, Owens, and Morris, as set forth above,
was neither frank nor persuasive However, in view of the
fact that these cards would, in no event, be decisive as to
the question of majority, the Trial Examiner concludes
that, in view of the testimony of these witnesses, the cards
of Baldwin, Thorpe, Owens, and Morris should not be
counted
Cleve Mincev signed a card dated March 19. Mincey
had started to work at the Statesboro plant only the day
before He testified that Thomas Davis, a coworker, gave
him the card and said at the time that "everybody else
was signin' these cards, it was for election, he wanted me
to sign it, and I had just started . . he didn't read it and
I didn't read it, 'cause I cain't read too good " Davis was
never called to testify with respect to this incident. Mincey
was a completely credible witness and very obviously
knew little, if anything, as to what he was signing at the
time the authorization card was proffered to him
Consequently, and in view of these facts, the Trial
Examiner concludes that Mincey's card should not be
counted
3 The Union's majority status on April 20 and 225'
Subsequent to March 18 and before April 20, 11
employees signed valid designations of the Union as their
collective-bargaining agent 53 Earlier herein, it was found
that, on or before March 18, 224 employees then in the
unit signed valid authorization cards By April 20, 13 of
these individualsS3 were either no longer in the
Respondent's employ or not in the unit. The remaining
211, when added to the names of the 11 employees who
signed cards between March 18 and April 20, made a
total of 222 valid authorization cards on the latter date
On April 20, there were 326 employees in the appropriate
unit 51 The requisite majority at that time, therefore,
would have been 164 Since the Union had secured a total
of 222 valid designations from the employees then in the
unit, when the Union renewed its demand for recognition
on April 20 and 22, it had a substantial majority
5' Between April 20 and 22 there was no changes in either the number of
employees in the unit or the number of employees who had signed valid
designations
"I e . Jackson Brinson, Wanda C Bragg , Mavis Cobb, Evelyn Futch,
Ahmedow Godbee , Ruby Mae Griner , Marvin Hendrix , Evelyn Lee, Marie
Peacock , Mary Rieder , and Carnell Rushing
"I e , Laurie Blitch, James Bunch, Jack Bragg , Gerald Graham, Sam
Graham, Donnie Hendley, James Jones , Jimmy F Lesley , Glenda Marsh,
Lillian Messex , Larry Muns , Edward Thompson, and Donald H Wilson
There were 323 names on the list submitted by the Respondent This
list, however , did not contain the names of Wayne Connor , William Gary
Akins , and Truman Delano Cribbs , all of whom, as found above, were
discriminatorily terminated by the - Respondent during the period in
question
4. Findings and conclusions as to the alleged unlawful
refusal to bargain
As found earlier herein, in a letter dated February 17,
the Union requested recognition and bargaining as the
majority representative in the appropriate unit The letter
suggested that if the Company had a good faith doubt of
the Union's majority, the latter would submit the
authorization cards on which its claim was based to a
representative of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service or to any mutually agreeable third party In a
letter dated February 20, the Respondent declined both
recognition and the proposed third party card check, and
suggested that the Union proceed to a Board election
At the hearing, Enman J. Sheppard, who was assistant
plant manager when the Union made its initial demand,
testified that the Respondent's answer to the Union was
reached after a conference in which Plant Manager
Bachman, Personnel Manager Herrington and he
participated According to Sheppard, the three officials
concluded that the Union did not have a majority among
the employees because the employees were confused as to
the Union, some employees were reporting threats and
harassment by the Union, some of the employees reported
that they doubted the Union's majority, and, at other
Stevens' plants where the Textile Workers had made
similar claims, these claims had been proved baseless.
It was found, supra, that on February 17, the date of
the Union's initial demand, the Union did not have a
majority of valid designations to support its claim. By
March 18, and thereafter, however, when it renewed that
demand for recognition, the Union had a very substantial
majority The Respondent, on and after March 18, was
obligated to recognize and bargain with the Union as the
majority representative, unless it had a good faith doubt
of that majority. At no time subsequent to the dispatch of
the letter which it wrote on February 20, did the
Respondent endeavor to establish that it had altered the
basis for its rejection of the Union's request for
recognition Accordingly, the issue as to the Respondent's
good or bad faith must be viewed in the light of this
position and the facts as disclosed in this record.
Earlier, it was found that on February 16, the
Respondent discriminatorily terminated Wayne Connor.
This was several days before it received the Union's first
demand for recognition. By March 18, when the Union
made its second demand, the Respondent had
discriminatorily discharged William Gary Akins and on
March 26, it engaged in a similar violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act in terminating Truman Delano Cribbs.
Moreover, as found elsewhere in this decision, throughout
the period from the very outset of the organizational
campaign until after the election, every level of the
Respondent's supervisory hierarchy was involved in
numerous and continued acts of interference, restraint and
coercion. In the light of these facts, the Trial Examiner
concludes and finds that the Respondent's insistence on a
Board election and its refusal to recognize the Union, at
least on and after March 18, was motivated not by a
good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority, but rather by
a rejection of the collective-bargaining principle and by a
desire to gain time within which to destroy the Union's
majority status. Joy Silk Mills, Inc v. N.L R B, 185 F 2d
732, 741-742 (C.A.D C.), cert. denied 341 U S. 941;
N L R B v. Southeastern Rubber Mfg Inc , 213 F.2d 11,
14-15 (C.A 5) By this course of conduct, the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the
Union is a labor organization, all within the meaning of
the Act
2 All production and maintenance employees at the
Respondent's Statesboro, Georgia, plant, including
shipping clerk, shipper-receiver, stockroom employees,
dyehouse employees, quality control department
employees, production control department employees, and
specifically including sample clerks and clerk-typists or
clerks in said departments, leadmen and fixer leadmen,
but excluding office clericals, industrial engineering
department employees, personnel office employees,
professionals, watchmen-boilermen, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
3 At all times since March 18, 1968, the Union has
been, and now is, the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the aforesaid unit for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act
4 By failing and refusing at all times since March 18,
1968, to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid
unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Wayne Connor, William Gary Akins, and
Truman Delano Cribbs, thereby discouraging membership
in the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
6 By refusing to employ Mary Frances Bradley for
discriminatory reasons, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
7 By engaging in interference, restraint, and coercion,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act
8 The General Counsel has not proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent
interfered with, restrained or coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights safeguarded by the Act, except by
the specific acts and conduct found herein to have been
violative
9 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices , the Trial Examiner will
recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act in the particulars set
forth in the Recommended Order . For the reasons which
are stated in J P Stevens & Co , Inc , 167 NLRB No. 37,
enfd . 406 F 2d 1017 (C.A 4), the Trial Examiner will
recommend a broad cease and desist order. Where the
recommendation is to make an employee , or employee
applicant, whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a
result of discharge or other discriminatory actions, the
sum to be paid the individual shall be computed in
accordance with the formula approved in F W
Woolworth Company , 90 NLRB 289, with interest
thereon computed in the manner and amount prescribed in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716, 717-721
It will also be recommended that the Respondent be
required to preserve and make available to the Board, or
its agents , on request , payroll and other records necessary
to facilitate the computation of backpay due
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
the Trial Examiner hereby issues the following
ORDER
J P Stevens & Co , Inc , Gulistan Division, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall
I Cease and desist from.
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union
(b) Discharging, refusing to employ, or otherwise
discriminating against employees in regard to hire and
tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment in order to discourage membership in Textile
Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization
(c) Engaging in surveillance of employees' activity in
respect to union organization or giving the impression
thereof
(d) Interrogating any employee concerning such union
activity by him or other employees in a manner
constituting a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(e) Threatening its employees with discharge or other
reprisals if they become, or remain, members of the
Union or give any assistance or support to it.
(f) Altering its working conditions for the purpose of
defeating the organizational efforts of its employees, or of
the aforesaid Union, or the efforts of any other labor
organization of its employees.
(g) Instructing employees to watch for and report to the
Respondent the union activities of other employees.
(h) Promulgating, maintaining, or enforcing any rule
prohibiting employees during their nonworking time from
distributing union literature, or discussing union activities
in nonworking areas on company property
(i) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist the aforesaid
Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collective through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection, and
to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer to Wayne Connor, William Gary Akins, and
Truman Delano Cribbs immediate and full reinstatement
to their former positions, or to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make each
such employee whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, in
the manner described in the section of this Decision
entitled, "The Remedy "
(b) Offer to Mary Frances Bradley employment as a
spinner, winder, twister, or equivalent employment, and
make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered
by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against her,
in the manner described in the section of this Decision
entitled, "The Remedy."
J. P. STEVENS & CO.
(c) Notify any of the foregoing named employees, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement, upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due
and the right to employment under the terms of this
Order
(e) Upon request, bargain with the aforesaid Union, as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the
appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement
The appropriate unit is
All production and maintenance employees at the
Respondent's Statesboro, Georgia, plant, including
shipping clerk, shipper-receiver, stockroom employees,
dyehouse employees, quality control department
employees, production control department employees
and specifically including sample clerks and
clerk-typists or clerks in said departments, leadmen,
and fixer-leadmen, but excluding office clericals,
industrial engineering department employees, personnel
office employees, professionals, watchmen-boilermen,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(f) Inform employees of their rights under the Act and
assure them that the Respondent will not engage in the
conduct from which it is ordered herein to cease and
desist, and that the Respondent will comply with the
affirmative requirements of this order by mailing a copy
of the attached notice marked "Appendix D"55 to each
employee of its Statesboro, Georgia, plant and by posting
copies at said plant, for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
(g) Convene during working time, by departments and
by shifts, all its employees in the plants where unfair labor
practices have occurred and have either a responsible
official of the Respondent, at departmental supervisor
level or above, or a Board agent, read to said employees
the contents of the attached Notice.
(h) Upon request of the Union, immediately grant the
Union and its representatives reasonable access, for a one
year period, to its bulletin boards and all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted
(i) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in
writing within 20 days from the date of this
Recommended Order, as to what steps have been taken to
comply herewith 56
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaints herein be,
and they hereby are, dismissed insofar as they allege any
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
285
unfair labor practices other than as herein specifically
found
APPENDIX A
Valid Authorization Cards Signed on or before
February 17, 1968
Gary Akins
James R. Akins
Robert L. Andrews
Shelton Bacon
Fred Bazemore
Jack F. Bazemore
Jessie R. Bazemore
Sidney Bazemore
Mildred G. Bailey
Marion Beard
Larry Finch
Francis Floyd
Charles Gay
Jerry E. Gerrald
Jesse D. Glisson
Gerald Graham
Sam Grahm
Freddie Joe Grant
Randall Groover
Betty J. Gross
Charlie Beasley
Joe E. Beasley
Earl Gene Berry
Larry Berry
George Bland
Laurie Blitch
Linda Bolton
Mary Bolton
Jack Bowen
Ronald Bowen
Jack Bragg
Wendell S Bragg
Riley Brannen
Charles Brown
Gertrude Brown
Helen Brown
Winard 0 Burke
Jack Cannady
Roy E. Chester
Jerry Collins
Clyde Cone, Jr.
Gordon Cone, Sr
Remer Cone
Charles H. Connor
Wayne Connor
Jessie Covington
Myrtle Marie Cribbs
Truman Delano Cribbs
Jessie B Crosby
Glenda Davis
Henry Davis
Thomas Davis
Connie C Dixon
Thelma Driggers
Ruth A. Durden
Dollie Dyches
Gladys Dyches
William English
Ralph Evans
Edward L. Fanning
Dovis L Gwinnette
Ratsy Hagan
Johnnie Hall
Dell L Hendley, Jr.
Donnie Hendley
Bernard Hendrix
Bernard T Hendrix
Calvin C. Hendrix
Mae Nessmith Hendrix
John F. Hill
L D Hill
James F Hodges
William C. Hodges
David Hood
Enoch Howard
Don Hughes
Addie O. Jackson
Eddie Jones
James Jones
Jerry Jones
Sue H Jones
Veronica Keel
Ruth J. Kendrick
Bobby Key
James Larry Kingery
Jimmy Kingery
Naomi F. Lanier
Eria La Cue
Ozell Lawrence
Council Taylor Lee
Ebenezer Lee
Robert A. Lee
Mattie Mae Lewis
Rosa L Lewis
Tommy Lewis
Jimmy F. Lesley
Jeannette Littleton Wise
Reba Lott
Burdessie Lobe
Doy Love
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A. (cont'd )
Doy Love
Grady Love
Roosevelt Love
Fred C Lovett
Carolyn Lovett
Jacqueline Lowery
Jake Lundy
James McCall
Alfred McCollum
Ted W. McCorkle
Harold D. McCray
Annette McLaughlin
b. f. mcMillan
Gerald McMillan
William McMillan
Ike McNeely
Thelmon B. McPhatter
Glenda Marsh
J. C Marsh
Claudie Martin
Jerolene Miles
Jimmy C Miley
Agnes Hollingsworth
Miller
Andrew C. Miller, Jr.
Floyd Miller
James D Miller
Hubert Miller, Jr.
Roger D. Miller
John C. Mills
John W Mills
Betty Mincey
Ernest T. Mock
Malcolm Mock
Wayne Moore
Stevie Motes
Charles Nessmith
Joel Oglesby
Lester Parker
Issac Parrish
Jerry Potter
James Pounds
Christine Prince
Argentine Raymond
Bernie Lee Robinson
Willie D Robinson
Woody Royal
Cliff Rucker
David Rushing
Durrell Rushing
Aubrey Scott
Charlie C. Sheffield
William E. Sheley
Joyce Skinner
Lee Swenon Smith
Otha Smith
Walter Smith
Charles Stewart
Walter V. Street
Sammy Strouse
Elwood M Thompson
Margene Thompson
Charlie S Tucker
Charles A Waters
J. T. Wells
John D West
Jimmie Williams
Regis Wise
Jerry Woodcock
Doy Woods
Freddie Wiley
APPENDIX B
Employees in Bargaining Units as of February 17,1968
Frances P Akins
Gary Akins
James R. Akins
Sydney E Aldrich
Alva L. Anderson
Robert L. Andrews
Carl W. Andrus
Shelton Bacon
Mildred G Bailey
Martha L Baker
Maggie M. Baldwin
Eugene N. Bazemore
Fred V. Bazemore
Jack F. Bazemore
Jessie R Bazemore
Sidney S. Bazemore
Annie M. Beard
Betty J Beard
Marion R Beard
Charlie Beasley
Joe E . Beasley
Mack Bell
Earl G Berry
Howell Berry
Larry Berry
Rita L. Bird
George Bland
Rochel Bland
Laurie Blitch
Linda M. Bolton
Mary B. Bolton
Jack A. Bowen
Johnny J. BOWEN
Ronald D. Bowen
Bill Bragg
Jack Bragg
Wanda C. Bragg
Wendell L Bragg
Marjorie B Brannen
Riley B. Brannen
Eldon C Brant
Jackson E Brinson
Math Brinson
Billy Brown
Charles F. Brown
Gertrude Brown
Hazel Brown
Helen V Brown
Jacqueline H Brown
John C. Brown
Shirley G. Brown
Wilma L. Brunson
Wilber C. Bryant
Floyd Bunch
James F, Bunch
Vera F Bunch
Wmard 0 Burke
Rosa N. Byrd
June M. Callaway
Jack G. Cannady
Harold Carrington
Janell E Chester
Mildred E Chester
Roy E Chester
Mavis M. Cobb
Jerry Collins
Ruby D Collins
Clyde Cone, Jr.
Gordon E. Cone
Remer H. Cone
Charles H. Conner
Wayne Connor
Jessie T Covington
Myrtle M. Cribbs
Truman Cribbs
Jessie B Crosby
Glenda F. Davis
Henry A Davis
Sara B. Davis
Thomas Davis
Lois L Deal
Eulis DeLoach
Ned G. DeLoach
Charles B. Dixon
Connie C. Dixon
Gene T Dixon
Leona G. Dixon
Betty F. Daggers
Thelma J Driggers
Ruth A. Durden
Daniel L . Dyches
Dollie G. Dyches
Gladys D. Dyches
Harry J Dyches
Shirley B Edwards
Claudie B. Ellis
Monroe Ellis
Rolfe Ellis
Edward English
William English
Ralph W. Evans, Jr.
Maggie Faglier
Hilda B. Falligan
Edward L Fanning
Larry Finch
Verdell Finch
Willie L Fincher
Frances S Floyd
Lila D. Freeman
Aubrey Futch
Evelyn H. Futch
Charles A. Gay
Marble B. Gay
Jerry E Gerrald
Jessie D Glisson
Samuel L. Glisson
Ahmedow B Godbee
Gerald Graham
Sam Graham
Freddie J. Grant
Ruby M Griner
Randall A Groover
Betty J Gross
Betty J, Gunter
Dovis L. Gwinette
James H. Hagan
Louis L. Hagan
Patsy T; Hagan
Pearline B Hagan
Eleanor C. Haire
Johnny Hall
Virginia A. Hall
Douglas Ham, Jr.
Julia Hamilton
Jeannette S. Harley
Shirley G. Harper
Ruby L Harris
Dell L Hendley
Donnie Hendley
Bernard Hendrix
Bernard T . Hendrix
Bernice R. Hendrix
Calvin Hendrix
Carol D Hendrix
Florene D Hendrix
Joann W Hendrix
Mae A. Hendrix
Marvin Hendrix
Thomas G Hendrix
Uldine H Hendrix
Annie M Henry
John F Hill
L. D. Hill
Jacqueline J. Hodges
James F . Hodges
William C. Hodges
Grace E Hollingsworth
Mary Agnes
Hollingsworth
Mary Ann
Hollingsworth
Glenda M Holloway
David Hood
J. P STEVENS & CO. 287
APPENDIX B (cont'd ) Jimmie Reddick Walter V Street
Gilmmore Reddy Hugh G Strickland
W ll C SMary D. Rieder i iam tringer
Bernie L Robinson Sammy Strouse
Jimmy 0 Hood Johnnie 0 MCGalliard Marion M Robinson Sara M Tankersley
Enoch M Howard Nellie B. McGalliard
Robert H Howard Marian B McGrady
Willie D Robinson
Lamar Rountree Edward Thompson
James W Howell Emma J. McKeehan Wilton M Rowe Elwood M. Thompson
Josie M. Howell Annette K McLaughlin Woody Royal Harold Thompson
Don F. Hughes Benjamin F. McMillan Margene L Thompson
John P. Ivey Gerald L. McMillan Cliff Rucker
.
William E Thompson
Addle 0 Jackson Harry McMillan Carnell S. Rushing Lillie M Thorpe
Jeanette M. Jackson William H. McMillan David D Rushing Johnnie P. Tremble
Ike McNeely Durell Rushing Charlie S. Tucker
David H. Jenkins Jerry Rushing Earl K Underwood
Hubert P. Jenkins Thelma B McPhatter Lavinia P. Salyer Ted W Vickery Jr.
G. W. Johnson, Jr. Melba W. Mangrum SampsonJohn H
JohnsonLethia L Glenda Marsh
. Sallie T. Ward.
Eddie Jones Jake C. Marsh
Mary D Sanders Charles A Waters
Evelyn M. Jones Martha F. Marsh
Eddie Doyle Sapp Dorothy M. Waters
James Jones Ralph Marsh
Theresa Sapp Willa L Waters
Jerry Jones Claudie Martin John T. WellsMarcella Sasser N W llSue H. Jones Lillian Messex Aubrey S Scott
orman e s
W th DJWesley Kearney Jeroline M. Miles Charles C. Sheffield
eso n .
WddF l
l
Jimmy C Miley William E Sheley
re ie eyi
i W llJVeronica W Kee
d
William H Simmons
iamsimm e i
ld WD lRuth J. Kendrick An rew C. Miller Joyce Skinner
sonona i
Bobby J. Key Hubert Miller, Jr. Larry J. Skinner t A Wil oEJames L. Kingery James D Miller
R
Lee S Smith
nrnes s
WR BJimmy A Kingery oger D Miller Otha Smith
iseegis .
James E Knight William F Miller Donald R. Woodcock
Eria LaCue
.
John C Mills
Walter Smith
Jerry R. Woodcock
LanierJames A John W Mills Joseph C Woodcock. . Ralph Spence
Margaret Lanier Robert A Mills Doy Woods. Geneva F Stephens
Naomi F. Lanier Betty D. Mincey Lena R WoodsCharles L StewartGordon Mincey
.
Joanna B Stewart
Ozell Lawrence
. MorrisJoyce CErnest T. Mock ,
Council T Lee Jessie W. Mock APPENDIX C
Ebenezer Lee, Jr. l
Evelyn Y. Lee
Ma colm L Mock
Thomas F. Mock Alva L Anderson Marian McGrady
Robert A Lee Shelvy J. Morgan Eugene Bazemore Emma McKeehan
Jimmy Lesley Wayne E Moore Howell Berry Harry J. McMillan
Mattie M Lewis Franklin E Morris Donald D Brannen Melba MangrumRosa L. Lewis Winnefred Morton J. C. Brown Martha Fay Marsh
Tommy Lewis Grace L. Moseley Hazel Brown Lillian H Messex
Jeanette Littleton Motes, Stevie Wilber Bryant Robert Mills
James F Bunch Gordon Mincey
Martha J Lott Larry Muns Vera Bunch J W. Mock
Reba S Lott Barbara J NeSmith Rosa Byrd Thomas Mock
Refus Lott Sara L. NeSmith Shelvy Jean Morgan
Burdessie S Love Charles L Nessmith Eulis DeLoach Larry F. Muns
Dewitt Love, Jr Latrelle J. New Gene T Dixon
Doy Love, Jr. Joel M. Oglesby Freeda Driggers Irma C. Palmer
Grady Love John K. Owens Daniel Dyches John T. Parker
Roosevelt Love Irma C Palmer Monroe Ellis Doris Peacock
Carolyn L. Lovett John T Parker Verdell Finch Jimmie Reddick
Fred C Lovett Lawanda B Parker James H Hagan Lamar Rountree
Jeannette Harley Lavinia Patsy Salyer
Jacqueline C Lowery Lester Parker Thomas G. Hendrix John H Sampson
Jake Lundy Isaac Parrish Grace Hollingsworth Mary Sanders
James McCall Imogene A Payne Glenda M. Holloway Doyle Sapp
Alfred McCollum Doris E Peacock John P. Ivey Geneva Stephens
Ted W McCorkle Marie F. Peacock G. W. Johnson Hugh Strickland
Mary L McCoy Jerry L. Potter Evelyn Jones Elwood Thompson
Harold D McCray James H. Pounds James A Lanier, Jr. Johnnie Pearl Tremble
Windell J McElveen Christine E. Prince DeWitt Love, Jr. Sallie Ward
Raye J. McCullough Shirley Pughsley Wendell J McElveen, Norman Wells
Ida A. McGahee Argentine L. Raymond Ida Ann McGahee Donald R Woodcook
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX D
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that
After a trial in which all sides had the chance to give
evidence, a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board found that we, J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc.,
violated the National Labor Relations Act, and
recommended that we be ordered to post this notice to
inform our employees of'their rights.
The Act gives all employees these rights
To organize themselves
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain as a group through a representative
they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any or all of these things
The Trial Examiner also recommended that we be
ordered to assure our employees.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these
rights
You are free to join the Textile Workers Union of
America. AFL-CIO, or any other union, and by
majority choice, to select any union to represent you in
bargaining with us
WE WILL NOT fire you, refuse to employ you, or
punish you or treat you differently in any way because
you join a union or favor a union
WE WILL NOT spy on your union meetings or union
activities.
WE WILL NOT tell you to spy on each other and
report to us who joins a union or works for it
WE WILL NOT ask you anything about a union or
who is in the union or who favors it.
WE WILL NOT threaten to fire you, or punish you or
treat you differently in any way if you join or work for
a union, or vote for a union, or talk to other employees
about a union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of jobs or the
closing or moving of the plant or with any different
treatment because you attend union meetings or engage
in union activities or choose a union to represent you
WE WILL NOT make you, or encourage or offer to
assist you to, get out of a union.
WE WILL NOT prohibit you from distributing union
literature, or discussing union activities, during
nonworking time in nonworking areas on company
property
The Trial Examiner for the National Labor Relations
Board found that when we fired certain employees and
refused to employ Mary Frances Bradley, we did this
because they were for the Union The Trial Examiner
found that this violated the Act
As to the employees who were fired, We will give
them back their jobs and seniority, and we will make
up the pay they lost and also pay them 6 percent
interest. The names of these employees are
Wayne Connor William Gary Akins
Truman Delano Cribbs
As to Mary Frances Bradley, we will offer her a job
as a spinner, winder, twister, or equivalent employment
WE WILL also pay her for the wages lost and also 6
percent interest on this amount.
WE WILL upon request, meet and bargain collectively
with Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, as
your exclusive representative in the appropriate
bargaining unit, regarding wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, and sign our name to an agreement
containing any understanding reached. The bargaining
unit is
All production and maintenance employees at our
Statesboro, Georgia, plant, including shipping clerk,
shipper-receiver, stockroom employees, dyehouse
employees, quality control department, production
control department employees, and specifically
including sample clerks and clerk-typists or clerks in
said departments, leadmen and fixer-leadmen, but
excluding office clericals, industrial engineering
department employees, personnel office employees,
professionals, watchmen-boilermen, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act
J. P STEVENS & CO.,
INC., GULISTAN DIVISION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
Note. Notify the above-named employees if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their
right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 730 Peachtree
Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone 526-5741,
Area Code 404.